***Something Smells Really Good In Here***
arovo
RussellBee wrote in message <9co6cb$809$1...@intimidator.databasix.com>...
>OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore: something in this room smells
>really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
>
>It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
>anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
>products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
>
>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
>chat. But.
>
>*sigh*
>
Paint it Black
<bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
-=+>OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore: something in this room smells
-=+>really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
-=+>
-=+>It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
-=+>anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
-=+>products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
Are you french? <spits>
-=+>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
-=+>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
-=+>chat. But.
-=+>
-=+>*sigh*
-=+>
mhm16x3
________ ________
/ ______/\ / ______/\ ___
/ /\_____\/ / /\_____\/ / /\
/ /_/__ / /_/__ / / /
/ _____/\ / _____/\ / / /
/ /\____\/ / /\____\/ / / /
/ / / / / / /__/ /
/_/ / /_/ / \__\/
\_\/ \_\/
arovo
>>>really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
>>>
>>>It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
>>>anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
>>>products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
>>>
>>>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
>>>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
>>>chat. But.
>>>
>>>*sigh*
>>
>
hmmm, so I nailed it first go did I? ;-)
(afterall, we all know that 'no' really means 'yes')
later,
meowmix
<bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
-=+>They all laughed when Paint it Black
-=+><Lt_Colonel/1st_Virginia_Volunteers/Cęsium_Brigade=+FFI+=mhm1...@alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk-alt.nuke.france-NUKE_FRANCE_AND_THOSE_CUNTS_IN_BELGIUM_ALSO_THOSE_PRETEND_FROG_FUCKERS_IN_QUEBEC>
-=+>said:
-=+>
-=+>>On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:45:26 -0700, RussellBee
-=+>><bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
-=+>>
-=+>>-=+>OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore: something in this room smells
-=+>>-=+>really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
-=+>>-=+>
-=+>>-=+>It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
-=+>>-=+>anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
-=+>>-=+>products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
-=+>>
-=+>>Are you french? <spits>
-=+>
-=+>No, just civilized.
Sounds like an awful lot of perfumery for a bloke to have mate.
You sure you aint french? French ancestry mebe.
-=+>>-=+>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
-=+>>-=+>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
-=+>>-=+>chat. But.
-=+>>-=+>
-=+>>-=+>*sigh*
-=+>>-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>>mhm16x3
-=+>>
-=+>> ________ ________
-=+>> / ______/\ / ______/\ ___
-=+>> / /\_____\/ / /\_____\/ / /\
-=+>> / /_/__ / /_/__ / / /
-=+>> / _____/\ / _____/\ / / /
-=+>> / /\____\/ / /\____\/ / / /
-=+>> / / / / / / /__/ /
-=+>> /_/ / /_/ / \__\/
-=+>> \_\/ \_\/
DAVIDHERO
::
::OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore: something in this room smells
::really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
::
::It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
::anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
::products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
::
::What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
::weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
::chat. But.
::
::*sigh*
::
Maybe you just got some perfumed boogers, is all.
Big Red Shark
"RussellBee" <bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote in message
news:9cpjt6$ssi$2...@intimidator.databasix.com...
: They all laughed when DAVIDHERO <DAVI...@TEEHE3.net> said:
:
: >On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:45:26 -0700, RussellBee
: No...no, I think I would have remembered that. ("Oh, um, thanks. Just
: what I've always wanted.")
Maybe it's your toilet tank cleaner? New breakthroughs in toilet tank
technology are occurring every day. Toilets are now cleaner and even more
fragrant.
DJ Floorclearer
>
> stealing women's clothes again at the dry-cleaner?
You're getting RussellBee confused with P(aul).
--
per @ flonk . org
http://www.flonk.org
mhm 24x23 icq: 6047688
DJ Floorclearer
>
> They all laughed when meowmix
> <Lt_Colonel/1st_Virginia_Volunteers/Cęsium_Brigade=+FFI+=mhm1...@alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk-alt.nuke.france-NUKE_FRANCE_AND_THOSE_CUNTS_IN_BELGIUM_ALSO_THOSE_PRETEND_FROG_FUCKERS_IN_QUEBEC>
> said:
>
> >On Wed, 02 May 2001 11:05:03 -0700, RussellBee
> ><bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
> >
> >-=+>They all laughed when Paint it Black
> >-=+><Lt_Colonel/1st_Virginia_Volunteers/Cęsium_Brigade=+FFI+=mhm1...@alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk-alt.nuke.france-NUKE_FRANCE_AND_THOSE_CUNTS_IN_BELGIUM_ALSO_THOSE_PRETEND_FROG_FUCKERS_IN_QUEBEC>
> >-=+>said:
> >-=+>
> >-=+>>On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:45:26 -0700, RussellBee
> >-=+>><bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
> >-=+>>
> >-=+>>-=+>OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore: something in this room smells
> >-=+>>-=+>really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
> >-=+>>-=+>
> >-=+>>-=+>It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
> >-=+>>-=+>anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
> >-=+>>-=+>products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
> >-=+>>
> >-=+>>Are you french? <spits>
> >-=+>
> >-=+>No, just civilized.
> >
> >Sounds like an awful lot of perfumery for a bloke to have mate.
> >
> >You sure you aint french? French ancestry mebe.
>
> your body's natural musk to announce your presence to your fellow
> scroungers and lager-louts. In the large American city where I live, we
> consider it our patriotic duty to go about smelling of flowers, woods,
> spices, and citrus; not to do so seems really rather bolshevistic. I
> assure you, France doesn't enter into it.
>
> Please don't bother me about it anymore. It's making me sad. I'm sad now.
> FUCK.
Is there a large French speaking community in the city where you live?
New Orleans does not count. That city does not smell good.
> >-=+>>-=+>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
> >-=+>>-=+>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
> >-=+>>-=+>chat. But.
> >-=+>>-=+>
> >-=+>>-=+>*sigh*
> >-=+>>-=+>
--
Big Red Shark
"RussellBee" <bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote in message
: They all laughed when "Big Red Shark" <ski...@sprynet.com> said:
:
: >"RussellBee" <bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote in message
: I was not posting from the bathroom last night, Little Pink Fish.
:
Oh and I suppose bathroom smells do not waft in your domicile!?!?!? There is
no wafting in your tiny, perfect universe?? In my part of the world people
always comment on how my bathroom has smells wafting from it.
Scram
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
> OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore: something in this room smells
> really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
>
> It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
> anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
> products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
>
> What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
> weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
> chat. But.
>
> *sigh*
>
Japanese joss sticks. They are a small compressed incense with no wood.
Because of this they burn well and leave no acrid resonance, as some wood
incenses do. The box they come in is almost as beautiful as the sticks them
selves. I swear it has no glue, but follows a pattern of intricate folding.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
Snert!
arovo
>>>really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
>>>
>>>It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
>>>anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
>>>products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
>>>
>>>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
>>>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
>>>chat. But.
>>>
>>>*sigh*
>>
>
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
> When I was just a little Bee, I used to purchase (i.e., drop into my
> parents' shopping cart with a pouty "buy this for me" look on my face) the
> "Meera Oodabathi" joss sticks from India that were at the time available
> from Cost Plus Imports for about 50 cents a box.
>
> They came in a long triangular cardboard box of cheap white third-world
> cardboard, wrapped tightly in deep red cellophane. Even before I opened
> them their unsubtle perfume pervaded my bedroom. The sticks and the boxes
> looked as though they had been manufactured and packed in hot, squalid,
> dangerous factories by child laborers lashed to their seats with plastic
> tie-down strips.
>
> When I took them out of the box, the deep, black, gummy sticks left stains
> on my fingers that made my hands smell rather like what I imagined the
> inside of an Indian whorehouse might smell like without any whores in it
> (or any Indians). Lit, the joss sticks emitted a thick roiling trail of
> white smoke that somehow managed within minutes to oppress the whole house
> with its sharp benzoic reek.
>
> Having thus purified my bedroom, I would place my mom's Ravi Shankar album
> (she only had one) on the turntable of my kiddie record player, place the
> needle in the groove, and turn the big white plastic volume knob all the
> way to the right. Then I would lie back on my bed, dreaming of how cool it
> would be if only I were old enough to be a teenaged hippie, until my mom
> inevitably burst in the door yelling "TURN THAT FUCKING RAVI SHANKAR RECORD
> DOWN AND PUT THAT INCENSE OUT, YOU'RE GIVING ME A HEADACHE."
>
> Then I would turn the record down and put the incense out for a while.
>
> Anyhoo. Hmm? Oh, the point! Well, the point is, I should go down to Cost
> Plus and see if they still have any of that cheap-ass Indian incense.
>
> 'Cause I kinda miss it.
While you're there RussellBee, please make sure to look around for the video
title: "Mr India".
Bollywood at its finest.
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
> Oh, OK. Coolio. Actually, I have a friend who is a bit of a Bollywood
> buff, so he may have it already.
>
> OH OH OH! UPDATE!
>
> OK, I think I *may* have figured out what it was that smelled so good
> yesterday. See, this morning when I went to take a shower, I noticed as I
> took off my clothes and stepped into the basin that that smell was there
> again. And that's when it hit me: it *was* me, after all. Or, not exactly
> me, but something on me.
>
> Now, at this point I shall have to make a confession: I didn't take a
> shower yesterday. I didn't take one in the morning, and I didn't take one
> in the evening. I didn't shower at all. I didn't actually go anywhere
> yesterday, so what would have been the point? Yeah, that's right, bitches.
> You heard me. I stayed home all day yesterday and fucked around on the
> computer. Problem?
>
> Anyway, this morning when I smelled the darkly floral fragrance again in
> the shower, I realized what the smell was: it was Caswell-Massey "Tricorn"
> cologne still on my skin from the day before yesterday. The reason I
> didn't recognize it yesterday is quite simple, as well. Perfume (cologne,
> call it what you will) changes its scent as it reacts with the body
> chemistry of the person wearing it. It also matures as it interacts with
> the oxygen in the air and breaks down. What I had done, of course, was to
> let it mature a lot longer than I was used to--perhaps longer than I had
> ever done before.
>
> ****I**** smelled really good yesterday. Boy, that's a load off my mind.
Oh RussellBee, your pontifications are really very sweet. Yesterday for you, would
have been May Day remember. So you had full rights to enjoy the freedom of your
own -matured- body odour in the privacy of your own home. So long as you didn't
watch television (except to check the protests & the weather).
While we're on the subject. What do you think of intimate feminine hygiene
products?
arovo
> >>
> >>I've boated you before, laddie. But who *are* you? Were you the won (1)
> >>whom I got to explain to me, over and over, what "autoloading" images
> >>meant, or were you the won (1) who didn't know the difference between
> >>"proctor" and "propter"?
> >
> >
> >ahh, so pond-slime does have memory? how intriguing.
> >so do you know that browser automatically load images yet or r u still
> >confused? you've boated me before? no, that is not possible.
> >sure, i go out in my ketch now and then but I only boat chics.
>
><snip>
Wow, never before have I encountered somebody with such pathetic comprehension
skills. I mean, why do you bother to reply? You are only going to shit yourself
in front of everybody again... which leads me to think: maybe your mind really
is still in grade two or three? And this accounts for your poor reading ability
and lack of bowel control? You still simply cannot grasp basic sentences; simple
words and phrases like "in" and "web browser". Surely there is some government
sponsored program for your literacy problems... and there's always medical help
available to those with serious problems like yourself. Maybe you just need to
cut back on the urine/feces diet and add just a little more fibre to your choice
of foods? Maybe the fact is you like the smell of your own shit?
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
> Why you, I oughta...
>
> >Yesterday for you, would
> >have been May Day remember. So you had full rights to enjoy the freedom of your
> >own -matured- body odour in the privacy of your own home. So long as you didn't
> >watch television (except to check the protests & the weather).
>
> Oh, Fizzy Fizzy Fizzy. I love you and everything, but please try not to
> take it for granted that all of your acquaintances drink from the same
> ideological well.
f.a.c.e.t.i.o.u.s Me. Being.
>
>
> See, May Day is essentially a socialist holiday, and I'm not a socialist.
> Oh, I'm all for unions (God bless 'em) and the poor (likewise) but
> honestly, I *like* internal combustion engines and shiny consumer goods.
Most of us white, middle class upstarts do to. But we don't like crass exploitation
and manipulation.
>
>
> You wanna know how I observed May Day? I surfed around on the Web for a
> pair of cool red/white/red taillights and a decent power amp (at least 75W
> RMS per channel for the front speakers and 200W to the subwoofer in the
> rear) for my car. I posted to Usenet a little, and then shopped on the Web
> some more.
I shall tell you about my May Day- This further goes to prove my theory that my life
is but a series of unrelenting ironies punctuated by devastating slackness [which is
how I like it].
So I set my alarm for 6:30 [A-HEM]. Usually, I am only up at this hour if I've
stayed up all night, being the morning person that I am. Now as my little eyelashes
only met briefly for say 1 hour, somehow (I still haven't managed figured this out
yet) my higher reasoning decides to ignore my alarm, and thus I sleep till 12:30.
By the time I am able to function, and the coffee has kicked in, it's 1:30. So I
catch a bus into the city hoping to catch the tail end of any activities, but the
only cloo I have as to any sort of protest was the buzzing of a police helicopter
over the city district. Oh, and the random media vans and police types. These all
can be explained rationally enough by my usual speculative paranoia. So I grab a
yiros and head back home.
I put it down to an unconscious assimilation of Bob Black's "Abolition of Work".
>
>
> Around five o'clock I turned on the news and saw live coverage of a
> somewhat rowdy May Day protest in a large city near where I live, and
> chuckled to myself as the helicopter news camera pulled in on a crowd of
> identically-dressed, obviously young, obviously white, most-likely middle
> or upper class kids having what amounted to a big panty raid, with the
> police playing the part of the crusty old dorm matron.
Noted.
> I'll bet you three
> out of four of them couldn't have given you an articulate explanation of
> what they were protesting (I've seen reporters try this and the results are
> invariably funny).
I'll point you to an audio file of a *very* articulate 12 year old boy being
interviewed about M1 (when it's up). Because I know how much you care [grin]. What I
noticed about the mainstream media reports, is that the interviewers took on the
persona of the "disapproving parent" in their interviewing style. It was very much a
moral whitewash as far as the normals were concerned. I also noticed the barely
constrained hostility that allot of the reporters and news people had. Why, it was
almost as if their authority as media spokes people [for the fucking people] was
threatened. I saw footage of police in riot gear smash batons over the heads of
protesters, while the sound byte stated "The protesters were inciting violence". Not
all young people have the words, but they have the heart *sniff*, and that's what
counts. Seriously.
>
>
> Then I listened to some music and watched some goofy old movies on TV.
Which ones?
>
>
> I'm not trying to provoke you, Fizzypie, that's just how I feel. I don't
> like monopolies, I don't accept uncritically the homogenization of the
> global culture, and I hate cruelty. But I very truly don't give a fuck how
> much money Bill Gates or Kerry Packer make, and I think self-dramatizing
> "activists" who try to make statements about complex issues like world
> trade by parading around in Grim Reaper masks and throwing blood at the
> cops are just risible and lame.
>
> So, there's a pontification for you. Anyhoo. Say, we never did make out,
> did we?
Ok.
>
>
> >While we're on the subject. What do you think of intimate feminine hygiene
> >products?
>
> *ahem*
>
> <checks hair>
>
> <tests microphone>
>
> *ahem*
>
> I think they're just fine...in their place.
Which would be?
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
The Incredible Lightness of Snert.
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
> E.x.p.l.a.n.a.t.i.o.n. Not. Needing. :)
He smiled at me.
-Blink-
RussellBee smiled at me.
-Blink- -Blink-
=)
>
>
> >>See, May Day is essentially a socialist holiday, and I'm not a socialist.
> >>Oh, I'm all for unions (God bless 'em) and the poor (likewise) but
> >>honestly, I *like* internal combustion engines and shiny consumer goods.
> >
> >Most of us white, middle class upstarts do to. But we don't like crass exploitation
> >and manipulation.
>
> It just seems to me, Fizzums, that if there really are so many of you who
> actively dislike lying and cruelty, your collective purpose--which I assume
> is to call public attention to them and put a stop to them--might be better
> served by demonstrating en masse against specific examples of them than by
> gathering once a year and throwing bags of dogshit at city hall because "we
> hate poverty and stuff, man."
I do understand your argument. You will find that most of your argument below, while
valid, is but a re-run of an ideological crisis (some call it the late capitalist
schizophrenia) that has dogged this particular system since the Enlightenment. To break
this down for you in simpler terms (If i can).
The most widely understood signifiers of this "argument" have been labelled Capitalism
and Communism.
What you will find, however, is that both of these binaries only really serve to support
each other by their opposition. i.e. Capitalism maintains its moral high ground by
asserting the notion of the individuals right to property, unlike Communism, which
espouses collectivism. Ergo, "your system" is bad therefor "my system", being the only
other option, must be good. Both of us really know that these ideologues are both talking
about the division of power. One apparently offers a top down structure, while the other,
apparently offers a bottom up one.
It's the old "form two opposing parties shtick, where there really is only one". The
system being, in this case, the intangible & speculative global economy. i.e. who the
fuck sets the agenda for an abstract & conceptual system of VALUE. In effect, this system
renders *any* alternative null & void by wrote of assimilation into the old binary. Thus,
you will see the perpetuation of the old argument ad infinitum, ad nausium. Right.
What I personally believe, is that both of the above options are inherently flawed. Any
originating worth [in any detail] has been reduced to empty signifiers of a system that
NO ONE understands. If you ask me, it's just the memes getting cranky at our ignorance
and finally self propagating in a way that may finally transcend the flesh. But anyway. I
digress...
It's hard enough to comprehend what your neighbour's reality might be, let alone to asses
the merits of a global set of relationships that are infinite in their reiteration. The
May Day riots are reductionist, yes. To this you will see the usual reductionist
argument. However, they do signify a growing WESTERN unease of operating under a system
that is no longer seen to serve people directly. i.e. it has become a self perpetuating
system, which is forever re-designing itself to support its self. Added to this is the
environmental destruction that our consumption based ideology produces. I am not
advocating an end to *things*. I like *things*. However our own, very physical realities
are suffering under an illusion. People get sick of explaining the deconstruction. They
want to fight. [yes, yes I know]
I can rant about this forever and start getting into some semblance of detail, but I will
save that for some other time.
>
>
> >>You wanna know how I observed May Day? I surfed around on the Web for a
> >>pair of cool red/white/red taillights and a decent power amp (at least 75W
> >>RMS per channel for the front speakers and 200W to the subwoofer in the
> >>rear) for my car. I posted to Usenet a little, and then shopped on the Web
> >>some more.
> >
> >I shall tell you about my May Day- This further goes to prove my theory that my life
> >is but a series of unrelenting ironies punctuated by devastating slackness [which is
> >how I like it].
> >
> >So I set my alarm for 6:30 [A-HEM]. Usually, I am only up at this hour if I've
> >stayed up all night, being the morning person that I am. Now as my little eyelashes
> >only met briefly for say 1 hour, somehow (I still haven't managed figured this out
> >yet) my higher reasoning decides to ignore my alarm, and thus I sleep till 12:30.
> >By the time I am able to function, and the coffee has kicked in, it's 1:30. So I
> >catch a bus into the city hoping to catch the tail end of any activities, but the
> >only cloo I have as to any sort of protest was the buzzing of a police helicopter
> >over the city district. Oh, and the random media vans and police types. These all
> >can be explained rationally enough by my usual speculative paranoia. So I grab a
> >yiros and head back home.
> >
> >I put it down to an unconscious assimilation of Bob Black's "Abolition of Work".
>
> What things might you have done (he asked for no particular reason), had
> you been the sort of person who wakes for alarms and so had made it to the
> party in time?
I would have done this:
Walk with the other people. Talk to anyone who asks me questions. Get some sun. Take a
dump in Mickey D's.
>
>
> >>Around five o'clock I turned on the news and saw live coverage of a
> >>somewhat rowdy May Day protest in a large city near where I live, and
> >>chuckled to myself as the helicopter news camera pulled in on a crowd of
> >>identically-dressed, obviously young, obviously white, most-likely middle
> >>or upper class kids having what amounted to a big panty raid, with the
> >>police playing the part of the crusty old dorm matron.
> >
> >Noted.
> >
> >>I'll bet you three
> >>out of four of them couldn't have given you an articulate explanation of
> >>what they were protesting (I've seen reporters try this and the results are
> >>invariably funny).
> >
> >I'll point you to an audio file of a *very* articulate 12 year old boy being
> >interviewed about M1 (when it's up). Because I know how much you care [grin]. What I
> >noticed about the mainstream media reports, is that the interviewers took on the
> >persona of the "disapproving parent" in their interviewing style.
>
> Hard for them not to, I guess, when so many of the mostly-young protesters
> so self-consciously take on the persona of "naughty child."
See above argument.
>
>
> >It was very much a
> >moral whitewash as far as the normals were concerned. I also noticed the barely
> >constrained hostility that allot of the reporters and news people had. Why, it was
> >almost as if their authority as media spokes people [for the fucking people] was
> >threatened. I saw footage of police in riot gear smash batons over the heads of
> >protesters, while the sound byte stated "The protesters were inciting violence".
>
> The demo over here was not large and had not been advertised, and the local
> TV news "reporters" were just plain clueless about what was going on.
> That's not an exaggeration; they literally hadn't the foggiest notion what
> they were seeing.
They were seeing people reclaiming the streets. Seeing people saying "fuck you! I don't
feel like working today. I am not happy with the people who lay claim to responsible
government and trading". Eh?
The media is too stupid to work anything out that does not fit into a preconceived
category. Ok not too stupid, but it operates on a level which cannot process the above
without going "What the fuck?" Um, er, where does it fit? They only do that when they can
sufficiently assimilate any real difference. i.e turin it into a product, an image, a
logo, a brand.
>
>
> One of these bimbo "anchorpersons" back at the station, viewing the live
> helicopter footage of the protest, said something like: "We have no idea
> who these people are or what they're doing...it's possible that this could
> be some sort of organized labor dispute; I know that some unions have
> staged impromptu street demonstrations in the past. Could that be it?"
>
> (Me, to myself: "Heee! Like these little fuckers really have jobs!")
Oh, you.
>
>
> > Not
> >all young people have the words, but they have the heart *sniff*, and that's what
> >counts. Seriously.
>
> So did Mao's Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. Seriously. Just
> brimming with idealistic fervor, they were, and the youthful conceit that
> it was up to them to transform the world.
>
> Having miles and miles and miles of heart doesn't make one right; it could
> just as well mean (and often does mean) that one is passionately wrong.
I understand your point.
>
>
> >>Then I listened to some music and watched some goofy old movies on TV.
> >
> >Which ones?
>
> Public Enemy (I guess it's mean of me to call that one goofy...let's just
> say it's a product of its time. That last bit where his mother thinks he's
> coming home is really sad, and not goofy at all, really) and, um. What
> else? I'll get back to you when I remember (it wasn't Night Of The Hunter,
> I can tell you that).
Get Quills out on video if you haven't already seen it. Nice, if not safe, interpretation
of the Marquise.
More about the creation of stories & mythology than anything tangible.
>
>
> >>I'm not trying to provoke you, Fizzypie, that's just how I feel. I don't
> >>like monopolies, I don't accept uncritically the homogenization of the
> >>global culture, and I hate cruelty. But I very truly don't give a fuck how
> >>much money Bill Gates or Kerry Packer make, and I think self-dramatizing
> >>"activists" who try to make statements about complex issues like world
> >>trade by parading around in Grim Reaper masks and throwing blood at the
> >>cops are just risible and lame.
> >>
> >>So, there's a pontification for you. Anyhoo. Say, we never did make out,
> >>did we?
> >
> >Ok.
>
> You keep that up, and I shall have to resort to riding past your house on
> my bicycle, popping wheelies and telling dirty jokes.
If you do, I shall be forced to loiter in my front garden and chew bubble gum.
>
>
> >>>While we're on the subject. What do you think of intimate feminine hygiene
> >>>products?
> >>
> >>*ahem*
> >>
> >><checks hair>
> >>
> >><tests microphone>
> >>
> >>*ahem*
> >>
> >>I think they're just fine...in their place.
> >
> >Which would be?
>
> Inside or adjacent to women's vulvas. Is this a trick question or were you
> just making conversation?
Ohhh, tricky. Cunt.
meowmix
wrote:
-=+>arovo wrote:
-=+>>
-=+>> stealing women's clothes again at the dry-cleaner?
-=+>
-=+>You're getting RussellBee confused with P(aul).
He's never gonna find this unless you x-post it mate. I don't think he
actauly reads this froup.
-=+>> RussellBee wrote in message <9co6cb$809$1...@intimidator.databasix.com>...
-=+>> >OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore: something in this room smells
-=+>> >really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
-=+>> >
-=+>> >It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
-=+>> >anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
-=+>> >products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
-=+>> >weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
-=+>> >chat. But.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >*sigh*
-=+>> >
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
> Yes, that would be awfully generous of you.
I *am* known for my generosity. Yes. here, have a cookie.
>
>
> >The most widely understood signifiers of this "argument" have been labelled Capitalism
> >and Communism.
> >
> >What you will find, however, is that both of these binaries only really serve to support
> >each other by their opposition. i.e. Capitalism maintains its moral high ground by
> >asserting the notion of the individuals right to property, unlike Communism, which
> >espouses collectivism. Ergo, "your system" is bad therefor "my system", being the only
> >other option, must be good. Both of us really know that these ideologues are both talking
> >about the division of power. One apparently offers a top down structure, while the other,
> >apparently offers a bottom up one.
>
> How do you figure? It seems to me that both systems apparently offer a
> bottom-up structure. Both capitalism and communism purport to put economic
> power in the hands of the people--capitalism by allowing individuals
> control over the distribution of their own wealth; communism by asserting
> public ownership of the means of production. Promoters of each system, of
> course, claim that the other system's claim is false ("Capitalism gives
> power to the people? Bah--all the wealth and power are concentrated in the
> hands of a few giant multinational corporations!" "Communism gives power to
> the people? Feh--how can you have power when the state owns everything you
> have, including the right to the fruits of your labor?").
So are you, in your summery above, agreeing with me that both systems fall far short of what
they claim to do? i.e. "put economic power in the hands of the people"?
>
>
> >It's the old "form two opposing parties shtick, where there really is only one".
>
> You're not saying, are you, that the ideologies of communism and capitalism
> were created by some larger and more insidious concern as a means to
> distract the masses from noticing its existence? (If not, why are you
> suggesting it?)
No. I am not advocating any sort of uber conspiracy. Rather my point being that the original
conceptual basis of both of these systems has been superseded by a global economic system that
is spinning out of control. One that can neither be called capitalist (in the true sense) or
communist (in the true sense). They call it "globalization" now, right?
"They", being rhetorical.
>
>
> >The
> >system being, in this case, the intangible & speculative global economy. i.e. who the
> >fuck sets the agenda for an abstract & conceptual system of VALUE.
>
> Well? Who the fuck sets it?
The people who own the systems of representation (i.e. media) and the means of production
(i.e. mega corps). Both set a cultural agenda of consumption that offers no "real" power to
the person on the street. It is a conceptual game played by speculation and perpetuated by a
culture of advertising. The people playing it at higher levels (advertising execs,
speculators) have even forgotten what the game plan is, all they are doing is perpetuating an
abstract goal now. That goal being the accumulation and circulation of wealth through out a
very small percentage of the worlds population.
Why? To get rich? They already are rich. To garner prestige, fame, glory? They can create a
media spectacle to create this. Why? Because they are bored. So instead of ending the game,
they will play on to the next ridiculous distraction. It could be a war, or a new fad, or a
shiny piece of redundant technology. But, by fuck, you cant argue with "progress". What do the
most powerful people in the world do when they are bored? They play golf.
>
>
> >In effect, this system
> >renders *any* alternative null & void by wrote of assimilation into the old binary.
>
> Well, that would certainly be convenient for the giant insidious System, if
> it existed. I notice it's awfully convenient already for people trying to
> argue for the existence of that System ("See, if you assert the primacy of
> any system other than the System, you're really just playing into the hands
> of the System.").
Don't confuse the oppositional rhetoric RussellBee. Granted, globalization may in fact be a
whole network of interconnected and symbiotic structures spanning both culture and geography.
However, and as you agree later, such a vast system of connections is difficult to fathom.
What then do we do? We look for patterns, going by the theory that a microcosm may in fact
reiterate at the macrocosm & vice versa.
>
>
> BTW, am I correct in assuming that "binary" has become the hip new
> post-poststructuralist word for "dualism"? Very "now," that. Very
> "cyber."
Modernist.
Just because you think you can bandy around *hip* new methodologies like "post-structuralism"
doesn't make you a "digi dandy" or anything. The reference to binary comes from the phrase
"binary opposition" to which you will find liberally applied throughout post-collonialist
thought.
Surely you have graduated past the semantic norms of Descartes. If not, feel free to set your
own language of context.
>
>
> > Thus,
> >you will see the perpetuation of the old argument ad infinitum, ad nausium. Right.
> >
> >What I personally believe, is that both of the above options are inherently flawed. Any
> >originating worth [in any detail] has been reduced to empty signifiers of a system that
> >NO ONE understands.
>
> OK, so the System is too vast and complex for anybody to understand (that's
> kinda like what mystics say about God, you know; it's also kinda like what
> parents say to their kids when they don't know the answer to a question).
You have not grasped my point here, although your tangent is just as applicable to my
argument. My point being that globalization and with it, advertising, has become the NEW
religion. We worship the media, and with it money, like we once worshiped stone idols.
However, the difference being, instead of us relating personally and holistically to our
idols, effectively making our own stories, mythology and culture. It's now served to us on a
pap drip of Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed down news reports. It's a one to many broadcast
model that renders us passive and stupid.
>
>
> I have to wonder, then, wherefore your righteous anger at it? You know, it
> could be the greatest thing since Weetabix.
>
> All those dewy-skinned, pampered upper-middle-class youngsters with the
> black masks and watchcaps and backpacks full of ball bearings and pig shit
> just might be demonstrating against something that will deliver the world
> from centuries of warfare and starvation. Probably not, but...just a
> thought.
>
> > If you ask me, it's just the memes
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! THAT WORD!!! SHE SAID THAT WORD!!!
Have you no concept of self parody. I'm a memetic warrior, I'll have you know.
[cough] Oh yea, shall I wield the sword of language and cut swathe through ideas most
fouleth... [cough]
>
>
> > getting cranky at our ignorance
> >and finally self propagating in a way that may finally transcend the flesh. But anyway. I
> >digress...
> >
> >It's hard enough to comprehend what your neighbour's reality might be, let alone to asses
> >the merits of a global set of relationships that are infinite in their reiteration.
>
> Hey, you said something I agree with!
Read it again.
>
>
> >The
> >May Day riots are reductionist, yes. To this you will see the usual reductionist
> >argument. However, they do signify a growing WESTERN unease of operating under a system
> >that is no longer seen to serve people directly. i.e. it has become a self perpetuating
> >system, which is forever re-designing itself to support its self. Added to this is the
> >environmental destruction that our consumption based ideology produces. I am not
> >advocating an end to *things*. I like *things*. However our own, very physical realities
> >are suffering under an illusion. People get sick of explaining the deconstruction. They
> >want to fight. [yes, yes I know]
> >
> >I can rant about this forever and start getting into some semblance of detail, but I will
> >save that for some other time.
>
> I'll pass on the rant. But, erm, I wouldn't mind seeing some semblance of
> detail.
> You...*do* mean in the toilet, don't you? That's what you mean, right?
> Right?
Right.
>
>
> >>>>Around five o'clock I turned on the news and saw live coverage of a
> >>>>somewhat rowdy May Day protest in a large city near where I live, and
> >>>>chuckled to myself as the helicopter news camera pulled in on a crowd of
> >>>>identically-dressed, obviously young, obviously white, most-likely middle
> >>>>or upper class kids having what amounted to a big panty raid, with the
> >>>>police playing the part of the crusty old dorm matron.
> >>>
> >>>Noted.
> >>>
> >>>>I'll bet you three
> >>>>out of four of them couldn't have given you an articulate explanation of
> >>>>what they were protesting (I've seen reporters try this and the results are
> >>>>invariably funny).
> >>>
> >>>I'll point you to an audio file of a *very* articulate 12 year old boy being
> >>>interviewed about M1 (when it's up). Because I know how much you care [grin]. What I
> >>>noticed about the mainstream media reports, is that the interviewers took on the
> >>>persona of the "disapproving parent" in their interviewing style.
> >>
> >>Hard for them not to, I guess, when so many of the mostly-young protesters
> >>so self-consciously take on the persona of "naughty child."
> >
> >See above argument.
>
> Argument seen. But see below re: media personnel taking any stance with
> regard to the demonstrators due to sheer ignorance. Point: "media" is not
> monolithic entity.
No, however you will see bigger and bigger structures taking place like the Time Warner merge.
Effectively creating huge power bodies that are very closely linked to corporate ideology.
This is especially dangerous as the media (representation) sets the reality standards on a
cultural level.
The media is not *objective*, it has always operated from some sort of agenda. Be that agenda
personal, or company required, or a collective set of standards etc. What you will find with
mainstream media though, is that because they are first and foremost businesses, their number
one agenda *is* profit. Logically then, anything opposing or questioning this is a threat to
their ability to make profit.
>
>
> >>>It was very much a
> >>>moral whitewash as far as the normals were concerned. I also noticed the barely
> >>>constrained hostility that allot of the reporters and news people had. Why, it was
> >>>almost as if their authority as media spokes people [for the fucking people] was
> >>>threatened. I saw footage of police in riot gear smash batons over the heads of
> >>>protesters, while the sound byte stated "The protesters were inciting violence".
> >>
> >>The demo over here was not large and had not been advertised, and the local
> >>TV news "reporters" were just plain clueless about what was going on.
> >>That's not an exaggeration; they literally hadn't the foggiest notion what
> >>they were seeing.
> >
> >They were seeing people reclaiming the streets. Seeing people saying "fuck you! I don't
> >feel like working today. I am not happy with the people who lay claim to responsible
> >government and trading". Eh?
>
> If you say so. What I was getting at is that these particular
> "journalists" didn't even know that they were seeing a May Day protest, or
> that it had anything to do with what was going on in Europe and elswhere.
> For all they knew it could have been a mini-riot by punk rockers angry at
> being turned away from a matinee concert. They could hardly be accused,
> then, of doing the bidding of any moral whitewashers. They were quite
> literally at a loss for an explanation of what was happening.
Ok. The commercial media (channel Nine, Ten, Seven) here in Australia were positively
venomous in their reaction. Not overtly, but condescendingly and insidiously. There was no
examination of any argument, but instead just moral condemnation.
>
>
> (A few notes by way of, um, translation, and forgive me if you already know
> this: May Day as a holiday is a nonentity in the U.S. even among leftists;
> May Day demonstrations are practically unheard of. Local television news
> "reporters" in large U.S. cities are notoriously bubbleheaded and ignorant,
> and that reputation is for the most part deserved.)
>
> >The media
>
> Who?
Commercial media.
>
>
> >is too stupid to work anything out that does not fit into a preconceived
> >category. Ok not too stupid, but it operates on a level which cannot process the above
> >without going "What the fuck?" Um, er, where does it fit? They only do that when they can
> >sufficiently assimilate any real difference. i.e turin it into a product, an image, a
> >logo, a brand.
>
> How do you figure?
Take a "subculture". A "subculture", for clarification, has, when recognized as such, already
become a set of generalities that replaces any notion of the original intent. Take the
"hacker subculture" for example. At one time, when a community of people may have been playing
around with technology doing their thing for their own reasons, they could be seen to have a
degree of authenticity. However, as technology increasingly moves into the sphere of domestic
commodity, the "hacker subculture" is a handy signifier to use to garner sales. i.e. It has
the widely used attractor of being anti authoritarian (kids & angsty teens will love it) and
it uses technology and places technology as the prime signifier ( i.e. you must use tech
products to fit into the "identity").
With the creation of the "hacker subculture", the "Nerd" was dragged up from the recesses of
some bad 80's chick flick and reinstated as the "cool and plugged in uber-geek". The
"uber-geek" is the GUI for the consumption of products based on a thoroughly re-created
notion of the "hacker subculture". Take the Matrix for example. Neo's a fucking twit, but he
goes to raves and is, uh, cool. He is not the nervous social retard of yester year. Do you
know how many kids probably bought their Hewlett Packards after seeing the matrix? Or how many
other fuckers decided that collecting peripheral devices was no longer geeky, but "cyber"
cool? The "hacker subculture" has been reduced to a brand, a set of signifiers in order to
sell a product. In the process any authentic meaning has been flattened into image. Right.
This is the double play of disarming a somewhat potentially dangerous group of people and
reducing their valid concerns into a superficial and commodity based product.
>
>
> >>One of these bimbo "anchorpersons" back at the station, viewing the live
> >>helicopter footage of the protest, said something like: "We have no idea
> >>who these people are or what they're doing...it's possible that this could
> >>be some sort of organized labor dispute; I know that some unions have
> >>staged impromptu street demonstrations in the past. Could that be it?"
> >>
> >>(Me, to myself: "Heee! Like these little fuckers really have jobs!")
> >
> >Oh, you.
>
> I got a million of 'em.
Capitalist.
>
>
> >>>Not
> >>>all young people have the words, but they have the heart *sniff*, and that's what
> >>>counts. Seriously.
> >>
> >>So did Mao's Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. Seriously. Just
> >>brimming with idealistic fervor, they were, and the youthful conceit that
> >>it was up to them to transform the world.
> >>
> >>Having miles and miles and miles of heart doesn't make one right; it could
> >>just as well mean (and often does mean) that one is passionately wrong.
> >
> >I understand your point.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Then I listened to some music and watched some goofy old movies on TV.
> >>>
> >>>Which ones?
> >>
> >>Public Enemy (I guess it's mean of me to call that one goofy...let's just
> >>say it's a product of its time. That last bit where his mother thinks he's
> >>coming home is really sad, and not goofy at all, really) and, um. What
> >>else? I'll get back to you when I remember (it wasn't Night Of The Hunter,
> >>I can tell you that).
> >
> >Get Quills out on video if you haven't already seen it. Nice, if not safe, interpretation
> >of the Marquise.
> >More about the creation of stories & mythology than anything tangible.
>
> You and your intangibles, I just think that's...I might check it out
> though.
It's good. Read "Justine" before hand though.
>
>
> >>>>I'm not trying to provoke you, Fizzypie, that's just how I feel. I don't
> >>>>like monopolies, I don't accept uncritically the homogenization of the
> >>>>global culture, and I hate cruelty. But I very truly don't give a fuck how
> >>>>much money Bill Gates or Kerry Packer make, and I think self-dramatizing
> >>>>"activists" who try to make statements about complex issues like world
> >>>>trade by parading around in Grim Reaper masks and throwing blood at the
> >>>>cops are just risible and lame.
> >>>>
> >>>>So, there's a pontification for you. Anyhoo. Say, we never did make out,
> >>>>did we?
> >>>
> >>>Ok.
> >>
> >>You keep that up, and I shall have to resort to riding past your house on
> >>my bicycle, popping wheelies and telling dirty jokes.
> >
> >If you do, I shall be forced to loiter in my front garden and chew bubble gum.
>
> Ok.
>
> >>>>>While we're on the subject. What do you think of intimate feminine hygiene
> >>>>>products?
> >>>>
> >>>>*ahem*
> >>>>
> >>>><checks hair>
> >>>>
> >>>><tests microphone>
> >>>>
> >>>>*ahem*
> >>>>
> >>>>I think they're just fine...in their place.
> >>>
> >>>Which would be?
> >>
> >>Inside or adjacent to women's vulvas. Is this a trick question or were you
> >>just making conversation?
> >
> >Ohhh, tricky. Cunt.
>
> Well, I was trying to be delicate, but yes. (Making conversation; got it.)
Ok.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
http://www.microsoft.com&item=q20...@www.trojanmedia.org/hypermart.html
DJ Floorclearer
> though.
Same here, you're not in Texas like me are you?
> >New Orleans does not count. That city does not smell good.
>
> It smelled hella good when I was there. Beer, spicy food, damp leaves,
> cigarettes, mildewy old buildings, oh fuck I wanna go back now.
RussellBee
Ok.
>>>The most widely understood signifiers of this "argument" have been labelled Capitalism
>>>and Communism.
>>>
>>>What you will find, however, is that both of these binaries only really serve to support
>>>each other by their opposition. i.e. Capitalism maintains its moral high ground by
>>>asserting the notion of the individuals right to property, unlike Communism, which
>>>espouses collectivism. Ergo, "your system" is bad therefor "my system", being the only
>>>other option, must be good. Both of us really know that these ideologues are both talking
>>>about the division of power. One apparently offers a top down structure, while the other,
>>>apparently offers a bottom up one.
>>
>>How do you figure? It seems to me that both systems apparently offer a
>>bottom-up structure. Both capitalism and communism purport to put economic
>>power in the hands of the people--capitalism by allowing individuals
>>control over the distribution of their own wealth; communism by asserting
>>public ownership of the means of production. Promoters of each system, of
>>course, claim that the other system's claim is false ("Capitalism gives
>>power to the people? Bah--all the wealth and power are concentrated in the
>>hands of a few giant multinational corporations!" "Communism gives power to
>>the people? Feh--how can you have power when the state owns everything you
>>have, including the right to the fruits of your labor?").
>
>So are you, in your summery above, agreeing with me that both systems fall far short of what
>they claim to do? i.e. "put economic power in the hands of the people"?
No. I was disagreeing with your assertion that "one (of the two
ideologies) apparently offers a top down structure, while the other,
apparently offers a bottom up one."
Remember, also, that there is another difference between capitalism and
communism: nobody dreamed up operational capitalism. The system developed
organically, and the people who approved of it justified it theoretically
after the fact. Communism was conceived by men, as a theory, before it was
ever put into practice (one of the reasons it doesn't work). Just
something else to consider before dismissing the discourse of communism and
of capitalism, and their mutual engagement, as yet another false "binary."
>>>It's the old "form two opposing parties shtick, where there really is only one".
>>
>>You're not saying, are you, that the ideologies of communism and capitalism
>>were created by some larger and more insidious concern as a means to
>>distract the masses from noticing its existence? (If not, why are you
>>suggesting it?)
>
>No. I am not advocating any sort of uber conspiracy. Rather my point being that the original
>conceptual basis of both of these systems has been superseded by a global economic system that
>is spinning out of control.
Please tell me what this original conceptual basis was, and why it is
outmoded.
>One that can neither be called capitalist (in the true sense) or
>communist (in the true sense). They call it "globalization" now, right?
They do; and mostly they leave it at that, glossing over the fact that
"globalize" is a verb that calls for a subject (who is globalizing?) and an
object (what is he globalizing?).
>"They", being rhetorical.
>
>>
>>
>>>The
>>>system being, in this case, the intangible & speculative global economy. i.e. who the
>>>fuck sets the agenda for an abstract & conceptual system of VALUE.
>>
>>Well? Who the fuck sets it?
>
>The people who own the systems of representation (i.e. media) and the means of production
>(i.e. mega corps). Both set a cultural agenda of consumption that offers no "real" power to
>the person on the street.
Why does the person on the street need the people who own corporations and
"the media" to offer him power?
Or do you mean to say that large, wealthy corporations, by virtue of their
economic might, take power (the ability to make basic decisions about where
one lives, how one puts food on the table, etc.) *out* of the hands of the
person on the street? If so, how is this any different from the situation
100 years ago when big companies were so powerful that workers all over the
Western world felt the need to organize into labor unions to combat them?
>It is a conceptual game played by speculation and perpetuated by a
>culture of advertising. The people playing it at higher levels (advertising execs,
>speculators) have even forgotten what the game plan is, all they are doing is perpetuating an
>abstract goal now.
How do you figure?
>That goal being the accumulation and circulation of wealth through out a
>very small percentage of the worlds population.
>
>Why? To get rich? They already are rich. To garner prestige, fame, glory? They can create a
>media spectacle to create this. Why? Because they are bored.
How do you figure?
Human nature wants to acquire. The rich are not exempt from this, and they
never have been. Outrageously wealthy people have always sought to
increase their wealth even when they had more than they could possibly
spend. This was true a hundred years ago, and it was true a thousand years
ago before anybody knew what "globalization" was. What makes you think
that the rich today are substantially different in their motivation from
the rich of 1960, or 1690, or 0961?
>So instead of ending the game,
>they will play on to the next ridiculous distraction. It could be a war, or a new fad, or a
>shiny piece of redundant technology. But, by fuck, you cant argue with "progress". What do the
>most powerful people in the world do when they are bored? They play golf.
>
>>>In effect, this system
>>>renders *any* alternative null & void by wrote of assimilation into the old binary.
>>
>>Well, that would certainly be convenient for the giant insidious System, if
>>it existed. I notice it's awfully convenient already for people trying to
>>argue for the existence of that System ("See, if you assert the primacy of
>>any system other than the System, you're really just playing into the hands
>>of the System.").
>
>Don't confuse the oppositional rhetoric RussellBee.
Don't confuse it with what?
> Granted, globalization may in fact be a
>whole network of interconnected and symbiotic structures spanning both culture and geography.
>However, and as you agree later, such a vast system of connections is difficult to fathom.
>What then do we do? We look for patterns, going by the theory that a microcosm may in fact
>reiterate at the macrocosm & vice versa.
The "vast system of connections" is difficult to fathom. Difficult doesn't
mean impossible--it's just big, and there's a lot of it to fathom. It may
even be a two-man job (he said archly).
Your way of seeing and describing it ("intangible and speculative") looks
to me more like an attempt to mystify the global system, the better to hang
upon it your own interpretation of the motives of its active players, than
an effort to understand it.
>>BTW, am I correct in assuming that "binary" has become the hip new
>>post-poststructuralist word for "dualism"? Very "now," that. Very
>>"cyber."
>
>Modernist.
>
>Just because you think you can bandy around *hip* new methodologies like "post-structuralism"
>doesn't make you a "digi dandy" or anything.
Clealy, sir, have never seen me in my velour suit.
>The reference to binary comes from the phrase
>"binary opposition" to which you will find liberally applied throughout post-collonialist
>thought.
You don't say!
>Surely you have graduated past the semantic norms of Descartes. If not, feel free to set your
>own language of context.
"Graduated past," eh? You "put Descartes before the horse," Fizz, in
supposing po-co terminology "past" its modern or classical counterparts
without yet having successfully defended your (seemingly) postcolonialist
views on the global culture against my cross-examination.
I sure do hear "binary" "bandied about" more often than I used to.
>>>Thus,
>>>you will see the perpetuation of the old argument ad infinitum, ad nausium. Right.
>>>
>>>What I personally believe, is that both of the above options are inherently flawed. Any
>>>originating worth [in any detail] has been reduced to empty signifiers of a system that
>>>NO ONE understands.
>>
>>OK, so the System is too vast and complex for anybody to understand (that's
>>kinda like what mystics say about God, you know; it's also kinda like what
>>parents say to their kids when they don't know the answer to a question).
>
>You have not grasped my point here,
Don't be so sure that I haven't, Fizzy. I mentioned mystics for a reason.
>although your tangent is just as applicable to my
>argument. My point being that globalization and with it, advertising, has become the NEW
>religion. We worship the media, and with it money, like we once worshiped stone idols.
>However, the difference being, instead of us relating personally and holistically to our
>idols, effectively making our own stories, mythology and culture.
When did we do that?
>It's now served to us on a
>pap drip of Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed down news reports.
Where do you think those stereotypes come from? Does "the media" sit up at
night concocting them from thin air? No; I rather think they get them from
us.
It just may be that those Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed-down news
reports *are*, whether you like it or not, our own stories, mythology and
culture.
> It's a one to many broadcast
>model that renders us passive and stupid.
Do you really think that broadcasting--pictures on a screen; voices from a
radio; words on a piece of paper--can render the engaged-and-intelligent
passive and stupid?
>>I have to wonder, then, wherefore your righteous anger at it? You know, it
>>could be the greatest thing since Weetabix.
>>
>>All those dewy-skinned, pampered upper-middle-class youngsters with the
>>black masks and watchcaps and backpacks full of ball bearings and pig shit
>>just might be demonstrating against something that will deliver the world
>>from centuries of warfare and starvation. Probably not, but...just a
>>thought.
>>
>>>If you ask me, it's just the memes
>>
>>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! THAT WORD!!! SHE SAID THAT WORD!!!
>
>Have you no concept of self parody.
I've heard of it.
> I'm a memetic warrior, I'll have you know.
>[cough] Oh yea, shall I wield the sword of language and cut swathe through ideas most
>fouleth... [cough]
Thou foulst my screen with thy misuse of the suffix "eth." :)
>>> getting cranky at our ignorance
>>>and finally self propagating in a way that may finally transcend the flesh. But anyway. I
>>>digress...
>>>
>>>It's hard enough to comprehend what your neighbour's reality might be, let alone to asses
>>>the merits of a global set of relationships that are infinite in their reiteration.
>>
>>Hey, you said something I agree with!
>
>Read it again.
Ok.
Now *you* read it again. Especially the "assess the merits" part.
Ok.
>>>>>>Around five o'clock I turned on the news and saw live coverage of a
>>>>>>somewhat rowdy May Day protest in a large city near where I live, and
>>>>>>chuckled to myself as the helicopter news camera pulled in on a crowd of
>>>>>>identically-dressed, obviously young, obviously white, most-likely middle
>>>>>>or upper class kids having what amounted to a big panty raid, with the
>>>>>>police playing the part of the crusty old dorm matron.
>>>>>
>>>>>Noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll bet you three
>>>>>>out of four of them couldn't have given you an articulate explanation of
>>>>>>what they were protesting (I've seen reporters try this and the results are
>>>>>>invariably funny).
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll point you to an audio file of a *very* articulate 12 year old boy being
>>>>>interviewed about M1 (when it's up). Because I know how much you care [grin]. What I
>>>>>noticed about the mainstream media reports, is that the interviewers took on the
>>>>>persona of the "disapproving parent" in their interviewing style.
>>>>
>>>>Hard for them not to, I guess, when so many of the mostly-young protesters
>>>>so self-consciously take on the persona of "naughty child."
>>>
>>>See above argument.
>>
>>Argument seen. But see below re: media personnel taking any stance with
>>regard to the demonstrators due to sheer ignorance. Point: "media" is not
>>monolithic entity.
>
>No, however you will see bigger and bigger structures taking place like the Time Warner merge.
>Effectively creating huge power bodies that are very closely linked to corporate ideology.
Asserts what ought to be proved.
>This is especially dangerous as the media (representation) sets the reality standards on a
>cultural level.
See above.
>The media is not *objective*,
Trivally true, to the extent that no person in or outside of "the media"
can maintain immaculate, disembodied objectivity when observing or
reporting any event.
>it has always operated from some sort of agenda.
How do you figure?
> Be that agenda
>personal, or company required, or a collective set of standards etc. What you will find with
>mainstream media though, is that because they are first and foremost businesses, their number
>one agenda *is* profit.
The *boardroom* is concerned with profit. You've not shown that the
editorial floor carries out a profit-first agenda (or any agenda for that
matter).
> Logically then, anything opposing or questioning this is a threat to
>their ability to make profit.
Non sequitur. Please explain how, from the fact that the owners of a TV or
radio station, newspaper, or magazine are in business to make a profit, it
follows logically that anything "opposing or questioning" profit or the
profit motive threatens the ability of those owners to make money.
>>>>>It was very much a
>>>>>moral whitewash as far as the normals were concerned. I also noticed the barely
>>>>>constrained hostility that allot of the reporters and news people had. Why, it was
>>>>>almost as if their authority as media spokes people [for the fucking people] was
>>>>>threatened. I saw footage of police in riot gear smash batons over the heads of
>>>>>protesters, while the sound byte stated "The protesters were inciting violence".
>>>>
>>>>The demo over here was not large and had not been advertised, and the local
>>>>TV news "reporters" were just plain clueless about what was going on.
>>>>That's not an exaggeration; they literally hadn't the foggiest notion what
>>>>they were seeing.
>>>
>>>They were seeing people reclaiming the streets. Seeing people saying "fuck you! I don't
>>>feel like working today. I am not happy with the people who lay claim to responsible
>>>government and trading". Eh?
>>
>>If you say so. What I was getting at is that these particular
>>"journalists" didn't even know that they were seeing a May Day protest, or
>>that it had anything to do with what was going on in Europe and elswhere.
>>For all they knew it could have been a mini-riot by punk rockers angry at
>>being turned away from a matinee concert. They could hardly be accused,
>>then, of doing the bidding of any moral whitewashers. They were quite
>>literally at a loss for an explanation of what was happening.
>
>Ok. The commercial media (channel Nine, Ten, Seven) here in Australia were positively
>venomous in their reaction. Not overtly, but condescendingly and insidiously. There was no
>examination of any argument, but instead just moral condemnation.
I can only take your word for it, I guess.
>>(A few notes by way of, um, translation, and forgive me if you already know
>>this: May Day as a holiday is a nonentity in the U.S. even among leftists;
>>May Day demonstrations are practically unheard of. Local television news
>>"reporters" in large U.S. cities are notoriously bubbleheaded and ignorant,
>>and that reputation is for the most part deserved.)
>>
>>>The media
>>
>>Who?
>
>Commercial media.
Who?
>>>is too stupid to work anything out that does not fit into a preconceived
>>>category. Ok not too stupid, but it operates on a level which cannot process the above
>>>without going "What the fuck?" Um, er, where does it fit? They only do that when they can
>>>sufficiently assimilate any real difference. i.e turin it into a product, an image, a
>>>logo, a brand.
>>
>>How do you figure?
>
>Take a "subculture". A "subculture", for clarification, has, when recognized as such, already
>become a set of generalities that replaces any notion of the original intent. Take the
>"hacker subculture" for example. At one time, when a community of people may have been playing
>around with technology doing their thing for their own reasons, they could be seen to have a
>degree of authenticity. However, as technology increasingly moves into the sphere of domestic
>commodity, the "hacker subculture" is a handy signifier to use to garner sales. i.e. It has
>the widely used attractor of being anti authoritarian (kids & angsty teens will love it) and
>it uses technology and places technology as the prime signifier ( i.e. you must use tech
>products to fit into the "identity").
>
>With the creation of the "hacker subculture", the "Nerd" was dragged up from the recesses of
>some bad 80's chick flick and reinstated as the "cool and plugged in uber-geek". The
>"uber-geek" is the GUI for the consumption of products based on a thoroughly re-created
>notion of the "hacker subculture". Take the Matrix for example. Neo's a fucking twit, but he
>goes to raves and is, uh, cool. He is not the nervous social retard of yester year. Do you
>know how many kids probably bought their Hewlett Packards after seeing the matrix? Or how many
>other fuckers decided that collecting peripheral devices was no longer geeky, but "cyber"
>cool? The "hacker subculture" has been reduced to a brand, a set of signifiers in order to
>sell a product. In the process any authentic meaning has been flattened into image. Right.
Is being a hacker cool in Australia? Serious question. Because it ain't
cool here.
>This is the double play of disarming a somewhat potentially dangerous group of people and
>reducing their valid concerns into a superficial and commodity based product.
I've heard that argument before. Hell, I've made that argument before.
Has it not occurred to you that the people who profit from commodification
of a subculture perhaps couldn't give a fuck about disarming it? That the
declawing of an oppositional subculture that may result from its symbols
being sold to the public in bulk are nothing more than a collateral effect
to which the seller is indifferent (he's already made his money)?
IMO, members of subcultures who accuse "the media" or "corporations" of
trying to destroy them by assimilation flatter themselves with the thought
that anybody is paying them that much attention.
>>>>One of these bimbo "anchorpersons" back at the station, viewing the live
>>>>helicopter footage of the protest, said something like: "We have no idea
>>>>who these people are or what they're doing...it's possible that this could
>>>>be some sort of organized labor dispute; I know that some unions have
>>>>staged impromptu street demonstrations in the past. Could that be it?"
>>>>
>>>>(Me, to myself: "Heee! Like these little fuckers really have jobs!")
>>>
>>>Oh, you.
>>
>>I got a million of 'em.
>
>Capitalist.
Sandalista.
>>>>>Not
>>>>>all young people have the words, but they have the heart *sniff*, and that's what
>>>>>counts. Seriously.
>>>>
>>>>So did Mao's Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. Seriously. Just
>>>>brimming with idealistic fervor, they were, and the youthful conceit that
>>>>it was up to them to transform the world.
>>>>
>>>>Having miles and miles and miles of heart doesn't make one right; it could
>>>>just as well mean (and often does mean) that one is passionately wrong.
>>>
>>>I understand your point.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Then I listened to some music and watched some goofy old movies on TV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which ones?
>>>>
>>>>Public Enemy (I guess it's mean of me to call that one goofy...let's just
>>>>say it's a product of its time. That last bit where his mother thinks he's
>>>>coming home is really sad, and not goofy at all, really) and, um. What
>>>>else? I'll get back to you when I remember (it wasn't Night Of The Hunter,
>>>>I can tell you that).
>>>
>>>Get Quills out on video if you haven't already seen it. Nice, if not safe, interpretation
>>>of the Marquise.
>>>More about the creation of stories & mythology than anything tangible.
>>
>>You and your intangibles, I just think that's...I might check it out
>>though.
>
>It's good. Read "Justine" before hand though.
Ok.
Doktor Pete
As a hoary old anarchist, with syndicalist leanings, I'm generally on your
side on this one. One thing in particular worries me though, and it's the
way that all of a sudden, Mayday has become M1. What's with this? Isn't
this the sort of marketing-driven rebranding and commodification that most
of the protesters would claim to despise?
--
"I would insult your intelligence, but what would be the point?" -
Doklands Mafia | http://www.fluxus.freeserve.co.uk
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
> Well, see, they're reclaiming the um...they're...it's this subversive sort
> of...um, transgressive irony the fuckin' textual fuckin'...um, see,
> basically it's OK 'cause it's them doing it. That's what it is.
<arches eyebrows>
Suffer the delusion, Pudding Boy.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
Snert! | mehhhhhhhhhhhh
fizzgigg
Doktor Pete wrote:
[making space for the hoary old anarchist]
> One thing in particular worries me though, and it's the
> way that all of a sudden, Mayday has become M1. What's with this? Isn't
> this the sort of marketing-driven rebranding and commodification that most
> of the protesters would claim to despise?
It's a tradition of reducing the day and date of an organised action to an acronym.
At the same time it also creates a decentralised organising body which takes the heat of
smaller interested groups. Take S=11 for example. September the 11th being the date of
the World Economic Forum in Melbourne last year, and the site of quite a large protest.
S=11 became the primary organisers, both electronically, on lists and through their web
page, and on the ground through local meetings. Who are S=11? No one in particular, there
is no S=11, just a bunch of diverse people deciding to mobilise for one day of action.
I see your point, however I don't think it's valid to say that the acronym M1 is an
attempt (even unconsciously) to replace the traditional emphasis of the May Day marches.
In fact, if anything, M1 introduces a new element to the workers movement by not only
recognizing but supporting the continual relevance of May Day. Which, by fuck, was
starting to look like a bunch of crusty old Unemployed Workers Unionists telling shaggy
dog stories about the days of yore.
Also, and this is pertinent, using the language of advertising is *not* off limits in my
book. To use language in a way that displaces the emphasis from commodification and onto
communication is valid. How else are you going to reclaim it?
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
Snertverticus III | Mehhhhhhhhhhhh
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
What, no thank you? No self-effacing giggle?
Ok. Granted.
>
>
> >>>It's the old "form two opposing parties shtick, where there really is only one".
> >>
> >>You're not saying, are you, that the ideologies of communism and capitalism
> >>were created by some larger and more insidious concern as a means to
> >>distract the masses from noticing its existence? (If not, why are you
> >>suggesting it?)
> >
> >No. I am not advocating any sort of uber conspiracy. Rather my point being that the original
> >conceptual basis of both of these systems has been superseded by a global economic system that
> >is spinning out of control.
>
> Please tell me what this original conceptual basis was, and why it is
> outmoded.
>
> >One that can neither be called capitalist (in the true sense) or
> >communist (in the true sense). They call it "globalization" now, right?
>
> They do; and mostly they leave it at that, glossing over the fact that
> "globalize" is a verb that calls for a subject (who is globalizing?) and an
> object (what is he globalizing?).
He? Indeed, what could "he" be globalizing?
Full points here, RussellBee.
The main thrust of "globalization" is to provide a system of trade agreements that are binding
across geographic boundaries. It is purely economic. Globalization facilitates a structure that
will allow vast corporate bodies to circumnavigate the wishes of local communities, laws and
customs, to make profits offshore.
>
>
> >"They", being rhetorical.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>The
> >>>system being, in this case, the intangible & speculative global economy. i.e. who the
> >>>fuck sets the agenda for an abstract & conceptual system of VALUE.
> >>
> >>Well? Who the fuck sets it?
> >
> >The people who own the systems of representation (i.e. media) and the means of production
> >(i.e. mega corps). Both set a cultural agenda of consumption that offers no "real" power to
> >the person on the street.
>
> Why does the person on the street need the people who own corporations and
> "the media" to offer him power?
> Or do you mean to say that large, wealthy corporations, by virtue of their
> economic might, take power (the ability to make basic decisions about where
> one lives, how one puts food on the table, etc.) *out* of the hands of the
> person on the street? If so, how is this any different from the situation
> 100 years ago when big companies were so powerful that workers all over the
> Western world felt the need to organize into labor unions to combat them?
>
> >It is a conceptual game played by speculation and perpetuated by a
> >culture of advertising. The people playing it at higher levels (advertising execs,
> >speculators) have even forgotten what the game plan is, all they are doing is perpetuating an
> >abstract goal now.
>
> How do you figure?
Because making profit for a very few, at the expense of the worlds resources and people, is not a
rational ideology. It's completely mad.
>
>
> >That goal being the accumulation and circulation of wealth through out a
> >very small percentage of the worlds population.
> >
> >Why? To get rich? They already are rich. To garner prestige, fame, glory? They can create a
> >media spectacle to create this. Why? Because they are bored.
>
> How do you figure?
>
> Human nature wants to acquire. The rich are not exempt from this, and they
> never have been. Outrageously wealthy people have always sought to
> increase their wealth even when they had more than they could possibly
> spend. This was true a hundred years ago, and it was true a thousand years
> ago before anybody knew what "globalization" was. What makes you think
> that the rich today are substantially different in their motivation from
> the rich of 1960, or 1690, or 0961?
Or 1788? Or 1984?
Tell me RussellBee, since when has a thoroughly Western set of values become the standard to
explain the whole of human nature, cross culturally? Be careful here. You are shooting yourself in
the foot if you think you can pull this line of reasoning. You illustrate, unconsciously I am sure,
the kinds of universal statements that were used in times of colonization to set up systems of
value that -require- oppositional binaries like rich/poor, civilised/savage, logical/illogical. If
we are to have a true global community, the assertion of a universal system which -is- based on a
legacy of racial, economic, and political oppression (and the resulting environmental degradation),
will have to CHANGE.
>
>
> >So instead of ending the game,
> >they will play on to the next ridiculous distraction. It could be a war, or a new fad, or a
> >shiny piece of redundant technology. But, by fuck, you cant argue with "progress". What do the
> >most powerful people in the world do when they are bored? They play golf.
> >
> >>>In effect, this system
> >>>renders *any* alternative null & void by wrote of assimilation into the old binary.
> >>
> >>Well, that would certainly be convenient for the giant insidious System, if
> >>it existed. I notice it's awfully convenient already for people trying to
> >>argue for the existence of that System ("See, if you assert the primacy of
> >>any system other than the System, you're really just playing into the hands
> >>of the System.").
> >
> >Don't confuse the oppositional rhetoric RussellBee.
>
> Don't confuse it with what?
An attempt to obfuscate for the sake of taking the contrary view.
>
>
> > Granted, globalization may in fact be a
> >whole network of interconnected and symbiotic structures spanning both culture and geography.
> >However, and as you agree later, such a vast system of connections is difficult to fathom.
> >What then do we do? We look for patterns, going by the theory that a microcosm may in fact
> >reiterate at the macrocosm & vice versa.
>
> The "vast system of connections" is difficult to fathom. Difficult doesn't
> mean impossible--it's just big, and there's a lot of it to fathom. It may
> even be a two-man job (he said archly).
>
> Your way of seeing and describing it ("intangible and speculative") looks
> to me more like an attempt to mystify the global system, the better to hang
> upon it your own interpretation of the motives of its active players, than
> an effort to understand it.
When did my own interpretation lose credence with the issue? You cannot attempt to remove the
political and personal from the game, RussellBee. You are saying here that I am to drop the
theoretical obfuscation and talk about my own personal beliefs. But hypocritically you to assert
that I "mystify" globalisation by coming to a personal understanding of it. Your argument is
flippant RussellBee. It seems you have a wafty and somewhat insubstantial base from which to
question. Please don't say that the "spectre of globilisation" is really that of your own shifting
ground?
>
>
> >>BTW, am I correct in assuming that "binary" has become the hip new
> >>post-poststructuralist word for "dualism"? Very "now," that. Very
> >>"cyber."
> >
> >Modernist.
> >
> >Just because you think you can bandy around *hip* new methodologies like "post-structuralism"
> >doesn't make you a "digi dandy" or anything.
>
> Clealy, sir, have never seen me in my velour suit.
[tucks a flower in your pipe]
> >The reference to binary comes from the phrase
> >"binary opposition" to which you will find liberally applied throughout post-collonialist
> >thought.
>
> You don't say!
Well, actually I did. See. Up there, ^)
> >Surely you have graduated past the semantic norms of Descartes. If not, feel free to set your
> >own language of context.
>
> "Graduated past," eh? You "put Descartes before the horse," Fizz, in
> supposing po-co terminology "past" its modern or classical counterparts
> without yet having successfully defended your (seemingly) postcolonialist
> views on the global culture against my cross-examination.
Hark, is this the theoretical pasture for circular argument of modernism?
The great grazing land of the old archaic racehorse. Hi Ho Silver, the withered steed of redundancy
rides forth. After you, Zoro. [tips hat]
>I sure do hear "binary" "bandied about" more often than I used to.
If you believe that my argument is for simply skittering along the tired lines of a shift from
modernism to po-mo you are wrong. If we are to get anywhere we need to move past this. My use of
po-co (loco-re-coco) does not imply that I situate my own beliefs as that of a rabid
post-modernist; clutching to some effervescent paradox to disolve past structures.
I see you have placed most of your argument, as it is now developing, within this context. I do not
believe that the dissolution of modernist structures into an infinite, and more or less meaningless
set of relationships is going to work. Theoretically, it's just the next conceptual puzzle to nut
out in a university bar. What ever change that -is- happening will happen on the streets, and not
in universities. Like on May Day for example. At the same time, however, you will find an
increasingly skilled set of people who are willing to take their skills and apply them to the
problem of a sustainable global society, from within. Who has the right to decide that an economic
system should be the linchpin for a global set of relationships? Why can't it be art, or ideas, or
language?
I think, (this is what you will find is going to happen in terms of cultural theory), that the
necessary split between old/analog/modernist/universal/patriarchal/central and *yawn*
new/digital/po-mo/relative/a-sexual/decentralised will be resolved. In this resolution you will
find the conundrum, the event horizon of the multiplicity of meaning will give way to the stark
realisation that we, as a species will either choose to kill ourselves off or adapt to a far more
mundane reality. That of sustainable existence. A methodology for this will take the most useful
parts (or the parts we cant get rid of) of both these paradigms.
One: This methodology will attempt to base the production of goods and technology within a
holistic approach to available and sustainable resources. This is the crux of the movement.
Two: This methodology will also take into account that the circulation of the production of goods
and technology need not be a method of distribution, but rather contribution.
Three: You will see interconnected networks of people sharing their skills across disciplines,
fields, geography and cultures, effectively creating a culture of open source.
Four: Work as we know it will cease to become the chimera of "progress", and will instead become
daily activities which give us all personal value, other than economic.
Velour?
Just how old -are- you anyway?
>
> >>>Thus,
> >>>you will see the perpetuation of the old argument ad infinitum, ad nausium. Right.
> >>>
> >>>What I personally believe, is that both of the above options are inherently flawed. Any
> >>>originating worth [in any detail] has been reduced to empty signifiers of a system that
> >>>NO ONE understands.
> >>
> >>OK, so the System is too vast and complex for anybody to understand (that's
> >>kinda like what mystics say about God, you know; it's also kinda like what
> >>parents say to their kids when they don't know the answer to a question).
> >
> >You have not grasped my point here,
>
> Don't be so sure that I haven't, Fizzy. I mentioned mystics for a reason.
Not that you're one to obfuscate or play advocate with logic's own glass beads.
>
>
> >although your tangent is just as applicable to my
> >argument. My point being that globalization and with it, advertising, has become the NEW
> >religion. We worship the media, and with it money, like we once worshiped stone idols.
> >However, the difference being, instead of us relating personally and holistically to our
> >idols, effectively making our own stories, mythology and culture.
>
> When did we do that?
>
> >It's now served to us on a
> >pap drip of Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed down news reports.
>
> Where do you think those stereotypes come from? Does "the media" sit up at
> night concocting them from thin air? No; I rather think they get them from
> us.
>
> It just may be that those Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed-down news
> reports *are*, whether you like it or not, our own stories, mythology and
> culture.
Of course Hollywood stereotypes are a part of our culture, but they are not the sum total of -all-
of our culture. I am not denying the feedback loop between culture and representation. However, the
issue I take is that when large corporations start buying up large portions of the media you are
not going to get a diverse representation of culture. What you will see however, is the use of
media to shape culture (the feedback loop is not one way, obviously) to support the existence of
large corporate bodies. This is the reason why advertising is so insidious. It replaces a more
organic culture with consumerist spiel which in turn supports the existence of the media, and the
corporate bodies that own it.
>
>
> > It's a one to many broadcast
> >model that renders us passive and stupid.
>
> Do you really think that broadcasting--pictures on a screen; voices from a
> radio; words on a piece of paper--can render the engaged-and-intelligent
> passive and stupid?
Passive? Absolutely. Stupid? That remains to be seen.
>
>
> >>I have to wonder, then, wherefore your righteous anger at it? You know, it
> >>could be the greatest thing since Weetabix.
> >>
> >>All those dewy-skinned, pampered upper-middle-class youngsters with the
> >>black masks and watchcaps and backpacks full of ball bearings and pig shit
> >>just might be demonstrating against something that will deliver the world
> >>from centuries of warfare and starvation. Probably not, but...just a
> >>thought.
> >>
> >>>If you ask me, it's just the memes
> >>
> >>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! THAT WORD!!! SHE SAID THAT WORD!!!
> >
> >Have you no concept of self parody.
>
> I've heard of it.
I don't believe you.
It is not a trivial point. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you think that corporate agenda
does not effect media representation? Honestly? If so, how do you figure?
>
>
> >it has always operated from some sort of agenda.
>
> How do you figure?
Because we all do. What our agenda is depends on our own systems of value.
> > Be that agenda
> >personal, or company required, or a collective set of standards etc. What you will find with
> >mainstream media though, is that because they are first and foremost businesses, their number
> >one agenda *is* profit.
>
> The *boardroom* is concerned with profit. You've not shown that the
> editorial floor carries out a profit-first agenda (or any agenda for that
> matter).
In a top down system this is a given, RussellBee.
>
>
> > Logically then, anything opposing or questioning this is a threat to
> >their ability to make profit.
>
> Non sequitur. Please explain how, from the fact that the owners of a TV or
> radio station, newspaper, or magazine are in business to make a profit, it
> follows logically that anything "opposing or questioning" profit or the
> profit motive threatens the ability of those owners to make money.
Because it calls into question the commercial media's authority as the objective reflector of our
culture. It is not a just a reflection, it is a projection, that is, for the most part, profit
driven.
Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, News Corporation, Sony, TCI, Universal, NBC, MSN...
Not exactly, although some people tend to piss their pants over wareZ. It's more of a geek chic
aesthetic that I see increasingly used in advertising. Along side this are the "tutti fruity"
pieces of technology like i-macs and automatic pez dispensers with call-back.
>
>
> >This is the double play of disarming a somewhat potentially dangerous group of people and
> >reducing their valid concerns into a superficial and commodity based product.
>
> I've heard that argument before. Hell, I've made that argument before.
>
> Has it not occurred to you that the people who profit from commodification
> of a subculture perhaps couldn't give a fuck about disarming it? That the
> declawing of an oppositional subculture that may result from its symbols
> being sold to the public in bulk are nothing more than a collateral effect
> to which the seller is indifferent (he's already made his money)?
>
>
> IMO, members of subcultures who accuse "the media" or "corporations" of
> trying to destroy them by assimilation flatter themselves with the thought
> that anybody is paying them that much attention.
Not true. An example I can give you is a woman who was actively protesting about Boise Cascade's
(one of the largest wood and pulp corporations in the world) involvement in the Chilean forests.
This was made possible under the NAFTA ( North American Free Trade Agreement). These Gondwana
forests are some of the last remaining remnant forests from before the last ice age. What they
effectively provide is a seed stock for all of the other forest species in Southern America, New
Zealand and Australia.
Now, on top of this is the fact that Boise Cascade was also working in close cahoots with the
Chilean government to use scare tactics towards to local peasant farmers and small scale wood
harvesters. After all, a gigantic American company had set up shop in their backyard effectively
fucking up their families futures, both ecologically and economically. One of the local farmers, an
uneducated but aware farmer named Rodolfo Montiel set about mobilising his community, who were
resistant to Boise, to protest. The Rubén Figueroa Alcocer government ( a Pinochet regime
throwback) at the time had already made things rather dangerous politically. But now the government
was set to loose a substantial profit through it's trade agreement with Boise. Whether or not Boise
actually colluded with the Rubén Figueroa Alcocer government is unproved. To this day Boise
sustains that it was unaware of the political climate in which it's operation was to take place.
The end result being that Rodolfo was taken by the Mexican Army, tortured and is now imprisoned
indefinitely for alleged drug trafficking and guerrilla activities.
Transnationals huh?
This all leaked out to various human rights and environment groups, and recently this has prompted
the evolution of a global Gondwana action group. One of the members of this group, a woman, was
publicizing Rodolfo's situation through the global grapevine and media. Recently, she has received
a slap notice and has been officially silenced by Boise on this matter. One person speaking out.
Go check out the Boise Cascade page and you will realise why what she was saying was so
threatening.
http://www.bc.com/
Notice the use of language, and how it promotes a certain type of community orientated identity:
This page illustrates Boise's appropriation of environmental slogans and stickers to create a
seemingly environmentally aware image:
http://www.bc.com/enviro/environment.html
Most of the office paper & products used in America are produced by Boise using offshore labour and
resources.
Gotta love that global economy. It makes fucking over someone else's resources and community that
much easier. Oh and by the way, the proposed logging coups in Chile were recently closed. The word
got out. =)
Rodolfo Montiel is still in prison.
>
>
> >>>>One of these bimbo "anchorpersons" back at the station, viewing the live
> >>>>helicopter footage of the protest, said something like: "We have no idea
> >>>>who these people are or what they're doing...it's possible that this could
> >>>>be some sort of organized labor dispute; I know that some unions have
> >>>>staged impromptu street demonstrations in the past. Could that be it?"
> >>>>
> >>>>(Me, to myself: "Heee! Like these little fuckers really have jobs!")
> >>>
> >>>Oh, you.
> >>
> >>I got a million of 'em.
> >
> >Capitalist.
>
> Sandalista.
Provocateur.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
fizzgigg
RussellBee wrote:
> OK...do that again, only witty this time.
What's wrong with Pudding Boy? I think it's rather sweet.
The Effulgent And Torsional Mr. Hole
>OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore:
>something in this room smells really,
>really good. And it's not me (not that I
>don't smell good).
>It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any
>incense in open packages or anything. All
>my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de
>toilette, hair-care products, soaps, and
>sweet body powders are securely in their
>containers.
>What the goddamn hell smells so good in
>here? I can't tell! It's so weird! Weird, but
>good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to
>stay and chat. But.
Maybe you were/are smelling a piece of food from 1 of your previous
meals that's become lodged under a large flap or fold of your skin.
>*sigh*
--
The Effulgent And Torsional Mr. Hole
This post reflects the spirit and historical significance of the
collected works of William Shakespeare, H.G. Wells, Charles Dickens,
Mark Twain, and Jack London, although some dramatic license has been
taken.
"Well Done, Mr Hole. A tremendous improvement over your usual posts.
Intelligent, with insight and even spelled properly. Have you been
studying, again?" - Helen & Bob
M.I. #1981
How's your hole..............family?
ameliorate / Cronan
Smokey Behr
>Soy de California del Sur.
>
As the jingle on KFI sez: "California without power is... Tijuana"
>>> >New Orleans does not count. That city does not smell good.
>>>
>>> It smelled hella good when I was there. Beer, spicy food, damp leaves,
>>> cigarettes, mildewy old buildings, oh fuck I wanna go back now.
>>>
>>> >> >-=+>>-=+>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
>>> >> >-=+>>-=+>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
>>> >> >-=+>>-=+>chat. But.
>>> >> >-=+>>-=+>
>>> >> >-=+>>-=+>*sigh*
>>> >> >-=+>>-=+>
--
Mad Hatter Matrix 21x12
WeeSaul Disciple #16
Smeeter #?
AntiCrust's Crusading Crumb #288305
alt.pave.the.earth List(tm)#T144
Space Girl Minion #?
SubGenius Police (Usenet Tactical Unit) Mobile,
Unit 451, Arson, Flame, and (mail)Bomb Investigation Team
AIM:SmokyBehr1 ICQ:6450219
Spammers killed to date: 60 (and rising)
Pursuant to 47 USC, unsolicited e-mail sent to any of my addresses is subject
to an archival fee of not less than $500 U.S. per copy. E-mail received
after any receipt of this notice implies acceptance of these terms. A
copy of the specific law regarding this activity may be found at
HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/uscode/47/227.shtml
"Never send a ferret to do a weasel's job." - Louie the Lizard
"Kiss Me Where it Smells Funny" - The Bloodhound Gang
Geek Code Block
GAT S:++ A C+++ ?U P L ?E W++ N*+++ !O K w--- o-- m---- ?v
PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP T+ 5+++ X++ R TV+++ B+ DI++++ D+ G E*+ H+.5
R++ Z++++
GothCode98
FSOyba3GaSbaiaaaHbaa55#CBWPXAjimmrficebN2A5NHb5B6deb5WQeiyz0cmdP#hkLdNakpl6KlDeEbebPRQHaaeIcaeusca
BOBCode
KPt$ lwW ES/O m5 CP/I B12 Ow Lb SC++ T+++ A6! H8mec b6 D++
Doktor Pete
>Doktor Pete wrote:
>
>> fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> wrote <3AF0FF2A...@bigpond.com>:
>>
[...]
Well, this may well be a tradition in Oz, but I'll confess it's the first
time I've come across it. To my mind it's far more reminiscent of the G8
economic summit than anything else. I appreciate the value of a
decentralised - or even non-existent - organising body for shadowboxing. It
also means that activists should consider themselves more responsible for
their own activities. Yet perversely, in the hands of a lazy media, they
will find themselves less likely to be able to communicate the reasons for
their protest.
The trouble with "reclaiming" this language is that it was never claimed in
the first place, and in my mind rightly so. It's not like individual
communties reclaiming words such as queer and nigger. Rather, it's an
entire language which cannot be used to express many of the core concerns of
the anti-capitalist movement. The language of advertising and marketing has
no words for imbalances of power, for morality. In trying to use it, those
concerns are badly mangled, and I worry that if the dialogue continues, the
very concepts will become devalued.
--
## /m\_/e\_/o\_/w\_/ \_/ \_/m\_/e\_/o\_/w\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/m\_/h\_/m\ ##
## \_/ \_/ \_/o\_/ \_/ \_/e\_/ \_/ \_/o\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ ##
## / \_/ \_/e\_/ \_/ \_/o\_/ \_/ \_/e\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/2\_/6\_/x\_/1\_/0\ ##
## \_/ \_/m\_/e\_/o\_/w\_/ \_/ \_/m\_/e\_/o\_/w\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ ##
## / \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/H\_/K\_/K\_/F\_/#\_/5\ ##
meowmix
<bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
-=+>They all laughed when meowmix
-=+><Lt_Colonel/1st_Virginia_Volunteers/Cęsium_Brigade=+FFI+=mhm1...@alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk-alt.nuke.france-NUKE_FRANCE_AND_THOSE_CUNTS_IN_BELGIUM_ALSO_THOSE_PRETEND_FROG_FUCKERS_IN_QUEBEC>
-=+>said:
-=+>
-=+>>On Wed, 02 May 2001 11:05:03 -0700, RussellBee
-=+>><bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
-=+>>
-=+>>-=+>They all laughed when Paint it Black
-=+>>-=+><Lt_Colonel/1st_Virginia_Volunteers/Cęsium_Brigade=+FFI+=mhm1...@alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk-alt.nuke.france-NUKE_FRANCE_AND_THOSE_CUNTS_IN_BELGIUM_ALSO_THOSE_PRETEND_FROG_FUCKERS_IN_QUEBEC>
-=+>>-=+>said:
-=+>>-=+>
-=+>>-=+>>On Tue, 01 May 2001 22:45:26 -0700, RussellBee
-=+>>-=+>><bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
-=+>>-=+>>
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>OK, I can't keep quiet about this anymore: something in this room smells
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>really, really good. And it's not me (not that I don't smell good).
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>It's kind of incense-y, but I don't have any incense in open packages or
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>anything. All my colognes, aftershaves, eaux de toilette, hair-care
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>products, soaps, and sweet body powders are securely in their containers.
-=+>>-=+>>
-=+>>-=+>>Are you french? <spits>
-=+>>-=+>
-=+>>-=+>No, just civilized.
-=+>>
-=+>>Sounds like an awful lot of perfumery for a bloke to have mate.
-=+>>
-=+>>You sure you aint french? French ancestry mebe.
Doh. I knew there was somthing I wanted to reply too as well as
something about cesium.
-=+>Perhaps in your council tenancy or dole queue, it is fashionable to allow
-=+>your body's natural musk to announce your presence to your fellow
I wurk nights. Job but still with the naural musk.
-=+>scroungers and lager-louts. In the large American city where I live, we
-=+>consider it our patriotic duty to go about smelling of flowers, woods,
-=+>spices, and citrus; not to do so seems really rather bolshevistic. I
-=+>assure you, France doesn't enter into it.
San Fransisco?
-=+>Please don't bother me about it anymore. It's making me sad. I'm sad now.
-=+>FUCK.
Have some camamile Tea. I don't actualy like the stuff myself. But my
mum does.
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>chat. But.
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>*sigh*
-=+>>-=+>>-=+>
-=+>>-=+>>
-=+>>-=+>>
-=+>>-=+>>mhm16x3
-=+>>-=+>>
-=+>>-=+>> ________ ________
-=+>>-=+>> / ______/\ / ______/\ ___
-=+>>-=+>> / /\_____\/ / /\_____\/ / /\
-=+>>-=+>> / /_/__ / /_/__ / / /
-=+>>-=+>> / _____/\ / _____/\ / / /
-=+>>-=+>> / /\____\/ / /\____\/ / / /
-=+>>-=+>> / / / / / / /__/ /
-=+>>-=+>> /_/ / /_/ / \__\/
-=+>>-=+>> \_\/ \_\/
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>>mhm16x3
-=+>>
-=+>> ________ ________
-=+>> / ______/\ / ______/\ ___
-=+>> / /\_____\/ / /\_____\/ / /\
-=+>> / /_/__ / /_/__ / / /
-=+>> / _____/\ / _____/\ / / /
-=+>> / /\____\/ / /\____\/ / / /
-=+>> / / / / / / /__/ /
-=+>> /_/ / /_/ / \__\/
-=+>> \_\/ \_\/
fizzgigg
Doktor Pete wrote:
A-ha! That's why we have global networks like [plug] www.indymedia.org. Indy Media is a brand
effectively set up to allow people to take the IM structure (server side & interface), and
make their own local independent media centres. While this is an online phenomena, and not
likely to take off on free to air TV, it provides a forum for people to cover global actions
from different perspectives. Now IM is not politically aligned with any one group, however the
emphasis is on diverse, independent reporting on issues towards a sustainable and equitable
society.
This did not happen 20 years ago on this scale.
>
>
> The trouble with "reclaiming" this language is that it was never claimed in
> the first place, and in my mind rightly so.
I disagree, language, as it develops, *is* effectively owned by those who direct its meaning.
Look at exclusive language like "He", for example. Some people really couldn't give flying
fig whether we use the word "He" to connote generalized humanity. However, other people find
that it insidiously mirrors the kinds of cultural hierarchies that we operate under i.e.
historically patriarchal. Not surprising as the english alphabet finds its genesis in
Classical culture.
Language is incredibly powerful, it shapes our reality just as much as we shape it. I do agree
that language, ideally, should not be a question of ownership, however.
> It's not like individual
> communties reclaiming words such as queer and nigger. Rather, it's an
> entire language which cannot be used to express many of the core concerns of
> the anti-capitalist movement.
I am all for inclusive language, or related communities of specific language users. But what
is language? It is nothing but a set of signifiers that are essentially arbitrary. On top of
this lies the structures that govern the relationships between the words and the meaning we
attach to them i.e. culture. If we can play around with these relationships, the signifiers
may indeed stay the same, however the meaning may be vastly different.
> The language of advertising and marketing has
> no words for imbalances of power, for morality. In trying to use it, those
> concerns are badly mangled, and I worry that if the dialogue continues, the
> very concepts will become devalued.
I think your concern is valid, and I agree there is always a risk that subversive ideas will
be assimilated into capitalist rhetoric and effectively be re-subverted [which is what N!ke is
trying to do with it's billboards]. But on the other hand, it is only through destabilizing
our commodity based language, that we are going to change it i.e. Question its prime authority
as an arbiter of cultural meaning. This does not exclude the creation/play of language, in a
more inclusive way, beside it.
When subversion becomes the new fad, and the advertisers pick it up to appropriate. We don't
loose out, they do. Why? Because they are using "shifting ground" which will ultimately
disrupt their *authority* to create meaning in culture
May culture jam be cool. It's the ultimate trojan.
Yeah I know, I find it hard to talk about this stuff without waxing retentive.
To this I say: "flibble"
>
> --
> ## /m\_/e\_/o\_/w\_/ \_/ \_/m\_/e\_/o\_/w\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/m\_/h\_/m\ ##
> ## \_/ \_/ \_/o\_/ \_/ \_/e\_/ \_/ \_/o\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ ##
> ## / \_/ \_/e\_/ \_/ \_/o\_/ \_/ \_/e\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/2\_/6\_/x\_/1\_/0\ ##
> ## \_/ \_/m\_/e\_/o\_/w\_/ \_/ \_/m\_/e\_/o\_/w\_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ ##
> ## / \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/ \_/H\_/K\_/K\_/F\_/#\_/5\ ##
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
fizzgigg
fizzgigg wrote:
One last thing on the question of owning language:
The word "Happy" is trade marked by Berri [a cold beverage company].
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
PriZm
It's the one with egg on its face!
DJ Floorclearer
>
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 11:25:56 -0700, RussellBee
> <bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
>
> >They all laughed when DJ Floorclearer <bo...@bork.bork> said:
> >
> >>RussellBee wrote:
> >>>
> >>> They all laughed when DJ Floorclearer <bo...@bork.bork> said:
> >>>
> >>> >RussellBee wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> They all laughed when meowmix
> >>> >> said:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >On Wed, 02 May 2001 11:05:03 -0700, RussellBee
> >>> >> ><bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> wrote:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >-=+>They all laughed when Paint it Black
¡VIVA MEXICO!
> >>> >New Orleans does not count. That city does not smell good.
> >>>
> >>> It smelled hella good when I was there. Beer, spicy food, damp leaves,
> >>> cigarettes, mildewy old buildings, oh fuck I wanna go back now.
> >>>
> >>> >> >-=+>>-=+>What the goddamn hell smells so good in here? I can't tell! It's so
> >>> >> >-=+>>-=+>weird! Weird, but good! Sort of...gweird! Well, I'd love to stay and
> >>> >> >-=+>>-=+>chat. But.
> >>> >> >-=+>>-=+>
> >>> >> >-=+>>-=+>*sigh*
> >>> >> >-=+>>-=+>
--
per @ flonk . org / http://www.flonk.org /\--/\
PjerTheMutantVjiking @ meow . org < ^..^ >
mhm 24x23 icq: 6047688 wgp.org/home/aavf3 \~U/
SLAVE 249
>Yeah I know, I find it hard to talk about this stuff without waxing retentive.
>To this I say: "flibble"
ITYM: "blipple".
HTH, HAND, M.
-bing-
"RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 - 0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub" wrote:
> They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
>
> >RussellBee wrote:
> >
> >> They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
> >>
> >>>RussellBee wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
> >>>>
> >>>>>RussellBee wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>RussellBee wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>RussellBee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>RussellBee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>RussellBee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
______________________[filed]
______________________[filed]
>
>
> >>>>>It's the old "form two opposing parties shtick, where there really is only one".
> >>>>
> >>>>You're not saying, are you, that the ideologies of communism and capitalism
> >>>>were created by some larger and more insidious concern as a means to
> >>>>distract the masses from noticing its existence? (If not, why are you
> >>>>suggesting it?)
> >>>
> >>>No. I am not advocating any sort of uber conspiracy. Rather my point being that the original
> >>>conceptual basis of both of these systems has been superseded by a global economic system that
> >>>is spinning out of control.
> >>
> >>Please tell me what this original conceptual basis was, and why it is
> >>outmoded.
> >>
> >>>One that can neither be called capitalist (in the true sense) or
> >>>communist (in the true sense). They call it "globalization" now, right?
> >>
> >>They do; and mostly they leave it at that, glossing over the fact that
> >>"globalize" is a verb that calls for a subject (who is globalizing?) and an
> >>object (what is he globalizing?).
> >
> >He? Indeed, what could "he" be globalizing?
>
> I thought you'd enjoy that.
>
> <giggles self-effacingly>
Thank you.
>
>
> >Full points here, RussellBee.
> >
> >The main thrust of "globalization" is to provide a system of trade agreements that are binding
> >across geographic boundaries. It is purely economic. Globalization facilitates a structure that
> >will allow vast corporate bodies to circumnavigate the wishes of local communities, laws and
> >customs, to make profits offshore.
>
> Better. But that sounds suspiciously like *capitalism* to me.
Really? I would like to hear this approximation from which you are judging my opinion from. Here:
Q------------------------------------------ & .......................
| | |_____.______|
| | | Think Tank |
| |||||||||||x||||||||| Escape Valve |__
| | | "Pull Me" __.,
| | | ~~,~~,~~,~~,~ |
's--------------------------------------------P |_____.______|
Big Bert's Manufacturing Company says:
"twist first, then pull".
[is it just me, or does ASCII seem to move around by its self sometimes..?]
>
>
> >>>"They", being rhetorical.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>The
> >>>>>system being, in this case, the intangible & speculative global economy. i.e. who the
> >>>>>fuck sets the agenda for an abstract & conceptual system of VALUE.
> >>>>
> >>>>Well? Who the fuck sets it?
> >>>
> >>>The people who own the systems of representation (i.e. media) and the means of production
> >>>(i.e. mega corps). Both set a cultural agenda of consumption that offers no "real" power to
> >>>the person on the street.
> >>
> >>Why does the person on the street need the people who own corporations and
> >>"the media" to offer him power?
> >
> >>Or do you mean to say that large, wealthy corporations, by virtue of their
> >>economic might, take power (the ability to make basic decisions about where
> >>one lives, how one puts food on the table, etc.) *out* of the hands of the
> >>person on the street? If so, how is this any different from the situation
> >>100 years ago when big companies were so powerful that workers all over the
> >>Western world felt the need to organize into labor unions to combat them?
>
> I notice that you chose not to answer this question. Perhaps it was an
> oversight.
Yeah it was. Either the kettle boiled or I skimmed it.
If you look at the Boise example below, you will see just how these large wealthy corporations "take
power (the ability to make basic decisions about where one lives, how one puts food on the table...)".
You may argue that this is an offshore problem, it's not directly effecting your life. But remember that
you most likely use the end products of this type of production. i.e. Boise paper products. I believe
it's important to be aware of how a product that you consume comes to fruition. It's then up to you to
decide whether or not it bothers you.
The main difference now from movements in the past, is that we have technologies which make
instantaneous global communication possible. Because of this, people are able to access greater amounts
of [dis]information, while at the same time, the political becomes abstracted. This abstraction, while
par the course, needs to be balanced with local & personal experience. Otherwise it's just pissing in
the wind, IMO.
The local and personal experience I bring to this conversation are working and liaising with the
Gondwana activists, and being raised close to Gondwana forest. Which I love. I *am* prepared to fight
for the things I love. I'm just "nice" that way. Bear in mind, this doesn't make me a martyr or
uncritical, and I definitely flop under my fair share of hypocrisy. I can admit that. There is nothing
to give up in admitting you believe in something, "RussellBee, even if it comes down to admitting that
nothing is for certain.
>
>
> >>>It is a conceptual game played by speculation and perpetuated by a
> >>>culture of advertising. The people playing it at higher levels (advertising execs,
> >>>speculators) have even forgotten what the game plan is, all they are doing is perpetuating an
> >>>abstract goal now.
> >>
> >>How do you figure?
> >
> >Because making profit for a very few, at the expense of the worlds resources and people, is not a
> >rational ideology. It's completely mad.
>
> How, on earth, bearing in mind that "nice" and "fair" do not equal
> "rational," do you figure?
"...the expense of the worlds resources"; How do you rationalize this "RussellBee?
By all means, I want to hear it. Who said anything about "nice" or "fair"? I'm talking about stupidity
here.
>
>
> >>>That goal being the accumulation and circulation of wealth through out a
> >>>very small percentage of the worlds population.
> >>>
> >>>Why? To get rich? They already are rich. To garner prestige, fame, glory? They can create a
> >>>media spectacle to create this. Why? Because they are bored.
> >>
> >>How do you figure?
> >>
> >>Human nature wants to acquire. The rich are not exempt from this, and they
> >>never have been. Outrageously wealthy people have always sought to
> >>increase their wealth even when they had more than they could possibly
> >>spend. This was true a hundred years ago, and it was true a thousand years
> >>ago before anybody knew what "globalization" was. What makes you think
> >>that the rich today are substantially different in their motivation from
> >>the rich of 1960, or 1690, or 0961?
> >
> >Or 1788? Or 1984?
> >Tell me RussellBee, since when has a thoroughly Western set of values become the standard to
> >explain the whole of human nature, cross culturally?
>
> Is that a rhetorical question?
No. You want to base your line of questioning on this hook, you answer it
> > Be careful here. You are shooting yourself in
> >the foot if you think you can pull this line of reasoning.
>
> We'll see, won't we? I notice, BTW, that amid your characterization of
> this Westerner's values as "Western," you failed to provide an answer to my
> question. Perhaps this was an oversight.
I would like to hear your idea of whatever "motivations" rich westerners possessed a hundred years ago,
as quite clearly you assume familiarity with this agenda yourself. Then I want to hear why you also
assume these motivations have not changed even within, a what, 1000 year time span?
I will apply them to what ever changes I see. If you want to bother with the pedantic breakdown, or
accurate timeline, that is.
> > You illustrate, unconsciously I am sure,
> >the kinds of universal statements that were used in times of colonization to set up systems of
> >value that -require- oppositional binaries like rich/poor, civilised/savage, logical/illogical. If
> >we are to have a true global community, the assertion of a universal system which -is- based on a
> >legacy of racial, economic, and political oppression (and the resulting environmental degradation),
> >will have to CHANGE.
>
> Right ON, man. So, are you telling me that rich people outside the West
> have not tended to seek to get richer, or are you just blowing smoke here?
[ow]Quit it with the hippy references, it's old and does nothing to support your argument.
What systems have the rich people outside the West used to get richer in the global markets, RussellBee?
>
>
> >>>So instead of ending the game,
> >>>they will play on to the next ridiculous distraction. It could be a war, or a new fad, or a
> >>>shiny piece of redundant technology. But, by fuck, you cant argue with "progress". What do the
> >>>most powerful people in the world do when they are bored? They play golf.
> >>>
> >>>>>In effect, this system
> >>>>>renders *any* alternative null & void by wrote of assimilation into the old binary.
> >>>>
> >>>>Well, that would certainly be convenient for the giant insidious System, if
> >>>>it existed. I notice it's awfully convenient already for people trying to
> >>>>argue for the existence of that System ("See, if you assert the primacy of
> >>>>any system other than the System, you're really just playing into the hands
> >>>>of the System.").
> >>>
> >>>Don't confuse the oppositional rhetoric RussellBee.
> >>
> >>Don't confuse it with what?
> >
> >An attempt to obfuscate for the sake of taking the contrary view.
>
> What makes you think I confused it with that?
Ok.
>
>
> >>>Granted, globalization may in fact be a
> >>>whole network of interconnected and symbiotic structures spanning both culture and geography.
> >>>However, and as you agree later, such a vast system of connections is difficult to fathom.
> >>>What then do we do? We look for patterns, going by the theory that a microcosm may in fact
> >>>reiterate at the macrocosm & vice versa.
> >>
> >>The "vast system of connections" is difficult to fathom. Difficult doesn't
> >>mean impossible--it's just big, and there's a lot of it to fathom. It may
> >>even be a two-man job (he said archly).
> >>
> >>Your way of seeing and describing it ("intangible and speculative") looks
> >>to me more like an attempt to mystify the global system, the better to hang
> >>upon it your own interpretation of the motives of its active players, than
> >>an effort to understand it.
> >
> >When did my own interpretation lose credence with the issue? You cannot attempt to remove the
> >political and personal from the game, RussellBee. You are saying here that I am to drop the
> >theoretical obfuscation and talk about my own personal beliefs.
>
> I've said no such thing.
So you are saying that theoretical obfuscation will make things clearer for you?
"Godawfully Ethereal"?
Hmmmmm?
>
>
> > But hypocritically you to assert
> >that I "mystify" globalisation by coming to a personal understanding of it.
>
> No, I assert that you mystify globalization with your explanation of it as
> "intangible" and impossible to understand. Pay attention.
I do not attempt to be able to explain globalisation in detail sufficient of that of an economics
student or someone involved in commercial law. I can, however, explain my perception of it from that of
my own background i.e. cultural theory. Are you implying that globalization is not intangible? If so,
i would be happy to hear your breakdown of how globalisation has been represented as a clear, equitable
and transparent system, RussellBee.
>
>
> >Your argument is
> >flippant RussellBee. It seems you have a wafty and somewhat insubstantial base from which to
> >question.
>
> How do you figure?
Because: "Something Smells Really Godawfully Ethereal in here" and it's not just moi.
>
>
> >Please don't say that the "spectre of globilisation" is really that of your own shifting
> >ground?
>
> The spectre of my own shifting ground? Are you feeling all right?
As right as I'll ever B.
>
>
> >>>>BTW, am I correct in assuming that "binary" has become the hip new
> >>>>post-poststructuralist word for "dualism"? Very "now," that. Very
> >>>>"cyber."
> >>>
> >>>Modernist.
> >>>
> >>>Just because you think you can bandy around *hip* new methodologies like "post-structuralism"
> >>>doesn't make you a "digi dandy" or anything.
> >>
> >>Clealy, sir, have never seen me in my velour suit.
> >
> >[tucks a flower in your pipe]
>
> Thank you.
You're welcome. By the way that flower's called Etherialis Spectatorium- you'll find it posses a rather
heady bouquet when crushed and smoked.
>
>
> >>>The reference to binary comes from the phrase
> >>>"binary opposition" to which you will find liberally applied throughout post-collonialist
> >>>thought.
> >>
> >>You don't say!
> >
> >Well, actually I did. See. Up there, ^)
>
> Ok.
>
> >>>Surely you have graduated past the semantic norms of Descartes. If not, feel free to set your
> >>>own language of context.
> >
> >>"Graduated past," eh? You "put Descartes before the horse," Fizz, in
> >>supposing po-co terminology "past" its modern or classical counterparts
> >>without yet having successfully defended your (seemingly) postcolonialist
> >>views on the global culture against my cross-examination.
> >
> >Hark, is this the theoretical pasture for circular argument of modernism?
> >The great grazing land of the old archaic racehorse. Hi Ho Silver, the withered steed of redundancy
> >rides forth. After you, Zoro. [tips hat]
>
> Ok.
>
> >>I sure do hear "binary" "bandied about" more often than I used to.
> >
> >If you believe that my argument is for simply skittering along the tired lines of a shift from
> >modernism to po-mo you are wrong. If we are to get anywhere we need to move past this. My use of
> >po-co (loco-re-coco) does not imply that I situate my own beliefs as that of a rabid
> >post-modernist; clutching to some effervescent paradox to disolve past structures.
>
> That's why I said "po-co" and not "po-mo." Pay attention.
What do you think po-co is?
>
>
> >I see you have placed most of your argument, as it is now developing, within this context.
>
> What, modernism v. post-modernism? Nope.
As I recall, this discussion started when I mentioned my interest in May Day activities.
I post this to usenet and it then becomes a signifier of my personal beliefs. You assume that my beliefs
are informed by a potsmoking-wafty-hippy-identity, which sometimes inversely manifests itself as
black-clad angry pissing in the wind. In doing this you also assume that my belief's are not valid
because they can tangentially relate [by image] to some preconceived notion of what the people, who
object to the commodification of culture, look like.
This is the crux of your argument.
It is wrong.
But it got a rise out of me, I'll give you that.
>
>
> >I do not
> >believe that the dissolution of modernist structures into an infinite, and more or less meaningless
> >set of relationships is going to work. Theoretically, it's just the next conceptual puzzle to nut
> >out in a university bar. What ever change that -is- happening will happen on the streets, and not
> >in universities. Like on May Day for example.
>
> Do you mean, with street demonstration? I don't see how. The corporations
> aren't going to change their ways because a bunch of youngsters in spiffy
> costumes yelled obscenities at them from the sidewalk. They only respond
> to economic pressure, and all the dorm-room revolutionaries and unemployed
> anarchists in the world combined just don't have the buying power to
> threaten them with boycott.
May Day was for the marchers, not the corporations. It was in honour of the people in front lines
everywhere. Acts like this also remind us to "think" every now and again, about how our personal value
systems are informed for e.g. I include myself in this.
>
>
> The only way that globalization can be stopped is if the great bulk of the
> populace demands it be stopped--and as it stands now, the great bulk of the
> populace is indifferent to it. What are you going to do about *that*? Do
> you expect your movement to change many minds by being seen on television
> shouting slogans and breaking windows?
Did it get to you stop and think at all? Say, rattle off a coupla hundred words on the issue?
>
>
> >At the same time, however, you will find an
> >increasingly skilled set of people who are willing to take their skills and apply them to the
> >problem of a sustainable global society, from within. Who has the right to decide that an economic
> >system should be the linchpin for a global set of relationships? Why can't it be art, or ideas, or
> >language?
>
> Because people must eat and be sheltered and get about, and they are able
> to do these things because of the economic transactions they make (exchange
> of labor for money, exchange of money for goods). Where there is
> international trade, the relationships between nations (or between
> far-flung groups of people, if you like) will always be primarily economic
> in nature because of this. And this remains so whether or not the
> companies involved in the trade are "transnational."
What about the major shift to the trading of information, RussellBee? This is not the 1940's. The
"people must eat and be sheltered and get about" line does not work if you compare it to billion dollar
weapon stockpiles. My point being that there are enough resources to go around, independent of
economics. It's economics that funnel resources away from the people who need them.
> >I think, (this is what you will find is going to happen in terms of cultural theory), that the
> >necessary split between old/analog/modernist/universal/patriarchal/central and *yawn*
> >new/digital/po-mo/relative/a-sexual/decentralised will be resolved. In this resolution you will
> >find the conundrum, the event horizon of the multiplicity of meaning will give way to the stark
> >realisation that we, as a species will either choose to kill ourselves off or adapt to a far more
> >mundane reality. That of sustainable existence. A methodology for this will take the most useful
> >parts (or the parts we cant get rid of) of both these paradigms.
> >
> >One: This methodology will attempt to base the production of goods and technology within a
> >holistic approach to available and sustainable resources. This is the crux of the movement.
> >
> >Two: This methodology will also take into account that the circulation of the production of goods
> >and technology need not be a method of distribution, but rather contribution.
> >
> >Three: You will see interconnected networks of people sharing their skills across disciplines,
> >fields, geography and cultures, effectively creating a culture of open source.
> >
> >Four: Work as we know it will cease to become the chimera of "progress", and will instead become
> >daily activities which give us all personal value, other than economic.
> >
> >Velour?
> >Just how old -are- you anyway?
>
> Utopia? How old are *you*?
I never said I wasn't an idealist.
>
>
> >>>>>Thus,
> >>>>>you will see the perpetuation of the old argument ad infinitum, ad nausium. Right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What I personally believe, is that both of the above options are inherently flawed. Any
> >>>>>originating worth [in any detail] has been reduced to empty signifiers of a system that
> >>>>>NO ONE understands.
> >>>>
> >>>>OK, so the System is too vast and complex for anybody to understand (that's
> >>>>kinda like what mystics say about God, you know; it's also kinda like what
> >>>>parents say to their kids when they don't know the answer to a question).
> >>>
> >>>You have not grasped my point here,
> >>
> >>Don't be so sure that I haven't, Fizzy. I mentioned mystics for a reason.
> >
> >Not that you're one to obfuscate or play advocate with logic's own glass beads.
>
> Do tell.
My lucky numbers are seven & three.
>
>
> >>>although your tangent is just as applicable to my
> >>>argument. My point being that globalization and with it, advertising, has become the NEW
> >>>religion. We worship the media, and with it money, like we once worshiped stone idols.
> >>>However, the difference being, instead of us relating personally and holistically to our
> >>>idols, effectively making our own stories, mythology and culture.
> >>
> >>When did we do that?
>
> Well?
It was an analogy to highlight the role of television as promoting passivity and lack of engagement with
our own, very valid, but under-represented, stories. Do you disagree?
>
>
> >>>It's now served to us on a
> >>>pap drip of Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed down news reports.
> >>
> >>Where do you think those stereotypes come from? Does "the media" sit up at
> >>night concocting them from thin air? No; I rather think they get them from
> >>us.
> >>
> >>It just may be that those Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed-down news
> >>reports *are*, whether you like it or not, our own stories, mythology and
> >>culture.
> >
> >Of course Hollywood stereotypes are a part of our culture, but they are not the sum total of -all-
> >of our culture. I am not denying the feedback loop between culture and representation. However, the
> >issue I take is that when large corporations start buying up large portions of the media you are
> >not going to get a diverse representation of culture. What you will see however, is the use of
> >media to shape culture (the feedback loop is not one way, obviously) to support the existence of
> >large corporate bodies. This is the reason why advertising is so insidious. It replaces a more
> >organic culture with consumerist spiel which in turn supports the existence of the media, and the
> >corporate bodies that own it.
>
> You consistently ascribe almost-magical powers to advertising and the
> "media." Here you grant them the power to supplant organic culture with
> its own homogenous consumer-culture. Does it not seem possible to you that
> culture can exist outside the reach of the "media"?
Utopia?
>
>
> >>>It's a one to many broadcast
> >>>model that renders us passive and stupid.
> >>
> >>Do you really think that broadcasting--pictures on a screen; voices from a
> >>radio; words on a piece of paper--can render the engaged-and-intelligent
> >>passive and stupid?
> >
> >Passive? Absolutely.
>
> How? Have we no agency here? Is it up to the talking boxes and newspapers
> to choose for us whether we engage the world actively? Is there no *limit*
> to the eerie power of this "media" god to cloud mortal minds?
Agency, transparent and accountable, is what I advocate.
>
>
> >Stupid? That remains to be seen.
>
> Ok.
>
> >>>>I have to wonder, then, wherefore your righteous anger at it? You know, it
> >>>>could be the greatest thing since Weetabix.
> >>>>
> >>>>All those dewy-skinned, pampered upper-middle-class youngsters with the
> >>>>black masks and watchcaps and backpacks full of ball bearings and pig shit
> >>>>just might be demonstrating against something that will deliver the world
> >>>>from centuries of warfare and starvation. Probably not, but...just a
> >>>>thought.
> >>>>
> >>>>>If you ask me, it's just the memes
> >>>>
> >>>>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! THAT WORD!!! SHE SAID THAT WORD!!!
> >>>
> >>>Have you no concept of self parody.
> >>
> >>I've heard of it.
> >
> >I don't believe you.
>
> I'll bet you think I really have a velour suit.
I *know* you've got a velour suit.
> No. Pay attention; I'm asking you to demonstrate that the corporate
> "agenda" exerts the sweeping control over "media" (what?) representation
> that you claim it does.
Demonstrate that it doesn't.
>
>
> >If so, how do you figure?
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>it has always operated from some sort of agenda.
> >>
> >>How do you figure?
> >
> >Because we all do. What our agenda is depends on our own systems of value.
>
> What "we all" do is not the same as what the "media" does.
No, but my argument stays the same. I also take into account that what "we all" do is shaped by those of
us who chose to broadcast in a media saturated world.
>
>
> >>> Be that agenda
> >>>personal, or company required, or a collective set of standards etc. What you will find with
> >>>mainstream media though, is that because they are first and foremost businesses, their number
> >>>one agenda *is* profit.
> >>
> >>The *boardroom* is concerned with profit. You've not shown that the
> >>editorial floor carries out a profit-first agenda (or any agenda for that
> >>matter).
> >
> >In a top down system this is a given, RussellBee.
>
> No, Fizzy, it's not a given. Please demonstrate how the reporters,
> writers, and editorial decision-makers at newspapers, magazines, radio
> stations, and television stations carry out a "corporate" agenda to such a
> degree that they knowingly dismiss or demonize globalization's discontents.
> Tell me, also, how you come to have such intimate knowledge of the
> goings-on within "media" organizations.
I propose, as an example, the use of laws in journalism like Defamation & Copyright, combined with the
amount of space that a commercial newspaper has to set aside for advertising and sponsorship. Do you not
think it reasonable that a journalist reporting on the production methods of N!KE [trite example but
useful], may run into an editorial brick wall if N!KE sponsors that papers production?
Lets say, for example, that N!KE applies pressure on the CEO, who applies pressure on the Editorial
Department & Marketing Department, who then apply pressure on the sub-editor, who then applies pressure
on the journalist to not submit a critique of N!KE practices from a certain angle. This is done under
the guise of Defamation Law, but what it really is, is market sensitive censorship.
Under a better system the journo could have their stuff published [keeping in mind that it's well
written and researched], and N!KE would be accorded the space in which to respond. This is a dialogue
which the public has a right to see, *and* participate in. From here, people make up their own minds as
to what they want to believe. This is an accountable method in a democratic system.
>
>
> >>>Logically then, anything opposing or questioning this is a threat to
> >>>their ability to make profit.
> >>
> >>Non sequitur. Please explain how, from the fact that the owners of a TV or
> >>radio station, newspaper, or magazine are in business to make a profit, it
> >>follows logically that anything "opposing or questioning" profit or the
> >>profit motive threatens the ability of those owners to make money.
> >
> >Because it calls into question the commercial media's authority as the objective reflector of our
> >culture. It is not a just a reflection, it is a projection, that is, for the most part, profit
> >driven.
>
> Please explain how it follows that if something "calls into question the
> commercial media's authority as the objective reflector of our culture,"
> its representation by the "media" actually threatens the ability of those
> "media" concerns to make money.
This is hinged upon my argument that asserts: Commercial media is subject to censorship and ideology
reflective of it's commercial sponsors and owning bodies.
> Those are companies. Companies cannot be "too stupid to work anything out
> that does not fit into a preconceived category," nor can they be "venomous
> in their reaction" to a political demonstration. People do these things.
The reporter in the street represents the agency who controls the broadcast. The broadcast is sponsored
by commercial advertising. Am I the only one who sees this link?
> Who are these people, and why are they, all the thousands of them, in your
> opinion so monolithic in their motivations and desires?
Isolating the people who own the big media organizations will not effect my argument. That is; a
system which owns the means of production of "information", will ultimately "control" the types of
information presented. This is done to maintain market position.
> That has nothing to do with hacker culture, watered-down or otherwise.
>
> "Geek" culture was never threatening to anybody; and those tutti-frutti
> Imacs represent something antithetical to geek and hacker culture:
How do you know?
>
> high-technology devices that the user is not expected to understand.
> They're certainly not sold by means of an appeal to "geek chic."
No, but the image of 'understanding high-tech devices' is certainly used to sell domestic ones.
> That's not an example of anybody trying to defang a subculture by
> assimilation.
Yes it is- I repeat: Go look at the language and imagery used [representation] to create an image of a
seemingly reasonable environmental standard which posits those who look critically at it as
fundamentalists. To create the norms in culture, one must create the polarities as well.
This argument of yours began with the assertion that I am a member of some anti authoritarian and youth
orientated subculture. In being so, you implied that I am not equipped to come to a critical
understanding of the things that effect my own beliefs. By assimilating me into a certain type of image,
you effectively denounce the validity of what i've got to say, while asserting that your own "objective,
informed and background" presence is the yard mark for my own self-awareness.
It's not.
Now, I don't believe that you're unaware [stupid] enough to really assume the above, so I'll go with the
theory that "responsibility means backing up your own argument". In this case, I do believe you have
received what you asked.
Cha Cha Cha...
______________________[filed]
______________________[filed]
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
"The Three Trees" 21.3x28cm. 1643, R.V,R.
-bing-
..or the fact that I removed my body from the argument.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
Rocky
-=+>
-=+>
-=+>"RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 - 0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub" wrote:
-=+>
-=+>> They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
-=+>>
-=+>> >RussellBee wrote:
-=+>> >
-=+>> >> They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>RussellBee wrote:
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>> They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>>RussellBee wrote:
-=+>> >>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>> They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
-=+>> >>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>RussellBee wrote:
-=+>> >>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
-=+>> >>>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>RussellBee wrote:
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>>They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>>>RussellBee wrote:
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>>>>They all laughed when fizzgigg <lu...@bigpond.com> said:
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>RussellBee wrote:
-=+>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
-=+>>
-=+>
-=+>______________________[filed]
-=+>
-=+>______________________[filed]
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>>>It's the old "form two opposing parties shtick, where there really is only one".
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>You're not saying, are you, that the ideologies of communism and capitalism
-=+>> >>>>were created by some larger and more insidious concern as a means to
-=+>> >>>>distract the masses from noticing its existence? (If not, why are you
-=+>> >>>>suggesting it?)
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>No. I am not advocating any sort of uber conspiracy. Rather my point being that the original
-=+>> >>>conceptual basis of both of these systems has been superseded by a global economic system that
-=+>> >>>is spinning out of control.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Please tell me what this original conceptual basis was, and why it is
-=+>> >>outmoded.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>One that can neither be called capitalist (in the true sense) or
-=+>> >>>communist (in the true sense). They call it "globalization" now, right?
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>They do; and mostly they leave it at that, glossing over the fact that
-=+>> >>"globalize" is a verb that calls for a subject (who is globalizing?) and an
-=+>> >>object (what is he globalizing?).
-=+>> >
-=+>> >He? Indeed, what could "he" be globalizing?
-=+>>
-=+>> I thought you'd enjoy that.
-=+>>
-=+>> <giggles self-effacingly>
-=+>
-=+>Thank you.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >Full points here, RussellBee.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >The main thrust of "globalization" is to provide a system of trade agreements that are binding
-=+>> >across geographic boundaries. It is purely economic. Globalization facilitates a structure that
-=+>> >will allow vast corporate bodies to circumnavigate the wishes of local communities, laws and
-=+>> >customs, to make profits offshore.
-=+>>
-=+>> Better. But that sounds suspiciously like *capitalism* to me.
-=+>
-=+>Really? I would like to hear this approximation from which you are judging my opinion from. Here:
-=+>
-=+>Q------------------------------------------ & .......................
-=+> | | |_____.______|
-=+> | | | Think Tank |
-=+> | |||||||||||x||||||||| Escape Valve |__
-=+> | | | "Pull Me" __.,
-=+> | | | ~~,~~,~~,~~,~ |
-=+>'s--------------------------------------------P |_____.______|
-=+>
-=+>Big Bert's Manufacturing Company says:
-=+>"twist first, then pull".
-=+>
-=+>[is it just me, or does ASCII seem to move around by its self sometimes..?]
I think you're correct. It doesn't look quite right from my view of
it.
-=+>> >>>"They", being rhetorical.
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>>The
-=+>> >>>>>system being, in this case, the intangible & speculative global economy. i.e. who the
-=+>> >>>>>fuck sets the agenda for an abstract & conceptual system of VALUE.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>Well? Who the fuck sets it?
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>The people who own the systems of representation (i.e. media) and the means of production
-=+>> >>>(i.e. mega corps). Both set a cultural agenda of consumption that offers no "real" power to
-=+>> >>>the person on the street.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Why does the person on the street need the people who own corporations and
-=+>> >>"the media" to offer him power?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >>Or do you mean to say that large, wealthy corporations, by virtue of their
-=+>> >>economic might, take power (the ability to make basic decisions about where
-=+>> >>one lives, how one puts food on the table, etc.) *out* of the hands of the
-=+>> >>person on the street? If so, how is this any different from the situation
-=+>> >>100 years ago when big companies were so powerful that workers all over the
-=+>> >>Western world felt the need to organize into labor unions to combat them?
-=+>>
-=+>> I notice that you chose not to answer this question. Perhaps it was an
-=+>> oversight.
-=+>
-=+>Yeah it was. Either the kettle boiled or I skimmed it.
-=+>
-=+>If you look at the Boise example below, you will see just how these large wealthy corporations "take
-=+>power (the ability to make basic decisions about where one lives, how one puts food on the table...)".
-=+>You may argue that this is an offshore problem, it's not directly effecting your life. But remember that
-=+>you most likely use the end products of this type of production. i.e. Boise paper products. I believe
-=+>it's important to be aware of how a product that you consume comes to fruition. It's then up to you to
-=+>decide whether or not it bothers you.
-=+>
-=+>The main difference now from movements in the past, is that we have technologies which make
-=+>instantaneous global communication possible. Because of this, people are able to access greater amounts
-=+>of [dis]information, while at the same time, the political becomes abstracted. This abstraction, while
-=+>par the course, needs to be balanced with local & personal experience. Otherwise it's just pissing in
-=+>the wind, IMO.
-=+>
-=+>The local and personal experience I bring to this conversation are working and liaising with the
-=+>Gondwana activists, and being raised close to Gondwana forest. Which I love. I *am* prepared to fight
-=+>for the things I love. I'm just "nice" that way. Bear in mind, this doesn't make me a martyr or
-=+>uncritical, and I definitely flop under my fair share of hypocrisy. I can admit that. There is nothing
-=+>to give up in admitting you believe in something, "RussellBee, even if it comes down to admitting that
-=+>nothing is for certain.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>It is a conceptual game played by speculation and perpetuated by a
-=+>> >>>culture of advertising. The people playing it at higher levels (advertising execs,
-=+>> >>>speculators) have even forgotten what the game plan is, all they are doing is perpetuating an
-=+>> >>>abstract goal now.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>How do you figure?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Because making profit for a very few, at the expense of the worlds resources and people, is not a
-=+>> >rational ideology. It's completely mad.
-=+>>
-=+>> How, on earth, bearing in mind that "nice" and "fair" do not equal
-=+>> "rational," do you figure?
-=+>
-=+>"...the expense of the worlds resources"; How do you rationalize this "RussellBee?
-=+>By all means, I want to hear it. Who said anything about "nice" or "fair"? I'm talking about stupidity
-=+>here.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>That goal being the accumulation and circulation of wealth through out a
-=+>> >>>very small percentage of the worlds population.
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Why? To get rich? They already are rich. To garner prestige, fame, glory? They can create a
-=+>> >>>media spectacle to create this. Why? Because they are bored.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>How do you figure?
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Human nature wants to acquire. The rich are not exempt from this, and they
-=+>> >>never have been. Outrageously wealthy people have always sought to
-=+>> >>increase their wealth even when they had more than they could possibly
-=+>> >>spend. This was true a hundred years ago, and it was true a thousand years
-=+>> >>ago before anybody knew what "globalization" was. What makes you think
-=+>> >>that the rich today are substantially different in their motivation from
-=+>> >>the rich of 1960, or 1690, or 0961?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Or 1788? Or 1984?
-=+>> >Tell me RussellBee, since when has a thoroughly Western set of values become the standard to
-=+>> >explain the whole of human nature, cross culturally?
-=+>>
-=+>> Is that a rhetorical question?
-=+>
-=+>No. You want to base your line of questioning on this hook, you answer it
-=+>
-=+>> > Be careful here. You are shooting yourself in
-=+>> >the foot if you think you can pull this line of reasoning.
-=+>>
-=+>> We'll see, won't we? I notice, BTW, that amid your characterization of
-=+>> this Westerner's values as "Western," you failed to provide an answer to my
-=+>> question. Perhaps this was an oversight.
-=+>
-=+>I would like to hear your idea of whatever "motivations" rich westerners possessed a hundred years ago,
-=+>as quite clearly you assume familiarity with this agenda yourself. Then I want to hear why you also
-=+>assume these motivations have not changed even within, a what, 1000 year time span?
-=+>
-=+>I will apply them to what ever changes I see. If you want to bother with the pedantic breakdown, or
-=+>accurate timeline, that is.
-=+>
-=+>> > You illustrate, unconsciously I am sure,
-=+>> >the kinds of universal statements that were used in times of colonization to set up systems of
-=+>> >value that -require- oppositional binaries like rich/poor, civilised/savage, logical/illogical. If
-=+>> >we are to have a true global community, the assertion of a universal system which -is- based on a
-=+>> >legacy of racial, economic, and political oppression (and the resulting environmental degradation),
-=+>> >will have to CHANGE.
-=+>>
-=+>> Right ON, man. So, are you telling me that rich people outside the West
-=+>> have not tended to seek to get richer, or are you just blowing smoke here?
-=+>
-=+>[ow]Quit it with the hippy references, it's old and does nothing to support your argument.
-=+>What systems have the rich people outside the West used to get richer in the global markets, RussellBee?
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>So instead of ending the game,
-=+>> >>>they will play on to the next ridiculous distraction. It could be a war, or a new fad, or a
-=+>> >>>shiny piece of redundant technology. But, by fuck, you cant argue with "progress". What do the
-=+>> >>>most powerful people in the world do when they are bored? They play golf.
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>>>In effect, this system
-=+>> >>>>>renders *any* alternative null & void by wrote of assimilation into the old binary.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>Well, that would certainly be convenient for the giant insidious System, if
-=+>> >>>>it existed. I notice it's awfully convenient already for people trying to
-=+>> >>>>argue for the existence of that System ("See, if you assert the primacy of
-=+>> >>>>any system other than the System, you're really just playing into the hands
-=+>> >>>>of the System.").
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Don't confuse the oppositional rhetoric RussellBee.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Don't confuse it with what?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >An attempt to obfuscate for the sake of taking the contrary view.
-=+>>
-=+>> What makes you think I confused it with that?
-=+>
-=+>Ok.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>Granted, globalization may in fact be a
-=+>> >>>whole network of interconnected and symbiotic structures spanning both culture and geography.
-=+>> >>>However, and as you agree later, such a vast system of connections is difficult to fathom.
-=+>> >>>What then do we do? We look for patterns, going by the theory that a microcosm may in fact
-=+>> >>>reiterate at the macrocosm & vice versa.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>The "vast system of connections" is difficult to fathom. Difficult doesn't
-=+>> >>mean impossible--it's just big, and there's a lot of it to fathom. It may
-=+>> >>even be a two-man job (he said archly).
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Your way of seeing and describing it ("intangible and speculative") looks
-=+>> >>to me more like an attempt to mystify the global system, the better to hang
-=+>> >>upon it your own interpretation of the motives of its active players, than
-=+>> >>an effort to understand it.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >When did my own interpretation lose credence with the issue? You cannot attempt to remove the
-=+>> >political and personal from the game, RussellBee. You are saying here that I am to drop the
-=+>> >theoretical obfuscation and talk about my own personal beliefs.
-=+>>
-=+>> I've said no such thing.
-=+>
-=+>So you are saying that theoretical obfuscation will make things clearer for you?
-=+>"Godawfully Ethereal"?
-=+>Hmmmmm?
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> > But hypocritically you to assert
-=+>> >that I "mystify" globalisation by coming to a personal understanding of it.
-=+>>
-=+>> No, I assert that you mystify globalization with your explanation of it as
-=+>> "intangible" and impossible to understand. Pay attention.
-=+>
-=+>I do not attempt to be able to explain globalisation in detail sufficient of that of an economics
-=+>student or someone involved in commercial law. I can, however, explain my perception of it from that of
-=+>my own background i.e. cultural theory. Are you implying that globalization is not intangible? If so,
-=+>i would be happy to hear your breakdown of how globalisation has been represented as a clear, equitable
-=+>and transparent system, RussellBee.
-=+>
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >Your argument is
-=+>> >flippant RussellBee. It seems you have a wafty and somewhat insubstantial base from which to
-=+>> >question.
-=+>>
-=+>> How do you figure?
-=+>
-=+>Because: "Something Smells Really Godawfully Ethereal in here" and it's not just moi.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >Please don't say that the "spectre of globilisation" is really that of your own shifting
-=+>> >ground?
-=+>>
-=+>> The spectre of my own shifting ground? Are you feeling all right?
-=+>
-=+>As right as I'll ever B.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>>BTW, am I correct in assuming that "binary" has become the hip new
-=+>> >>>>post-poststructuralist word for "dualism"? Very "now," that. Very
-=+>> >>>>"cyber."
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Modernist.
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Just because you think you can bandy around *hip* new methodologies like "post-structuralism"
-=+>> >>>doesn't make you a "digi dandy" or anything.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Clealy, sir, have never seen me in my velour suit.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >[tucks a flower in your pipe]
-=+>>
-=+>> Thank you.
-=+>
-=+>You're welcome. By the way that flower's called Etherialis Spectatorium- you'll find it posses a rather
-=+>heady bouquet when crushed and smoked.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>The reference to binary comes from the phrase
-=+>> >>>"binary opposition" to which you will find liberally applied throughout post-collonialist
-=+>> >>>thought.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>You don't say!
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Well, actually I did. See. Up there, ^)
-=+>>
-=+>> Ok.
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>Surely you have graduated past the semantic norms of Descartes. If not, feel free to set your
-=+>> >>>own language of context.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >>"Graduated past," eh? You "put Descartes before the horse," Fizz, in
-=+>> >>supposing po-co terminology "past" its modern or classical counterparts
-=+>> >>without yet having successfully defended your (seemingly) postcolonialist
-=+>> >>views on the global culture against my cross-examination.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Hark, is this the theoretical pasture for circular argument of modernism?
-=+>> >The great grazing land of the old archaic racehorse. Hi Ho Silver, the withered steed of redundancy
-=+>> >rides forth. After you, Zoro. [tips hat]
-=+>>
-=+>> Ok.
-=+>>
-=+>> >>I sure do hear "binary" "bandied about" more often than I used to.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >If you believe that my argument is for simply skittering along the tired lines of a shift from
-=+>> >modernism to po-mo you are wrong. If we are to get anywhere we need to move past this. My use of
-=+>> >po-co (loco-re-coco) does not imply that I situate my own beliefs as that of a rabid
-=+>> >post-modernist; clutching to some effervescent paradox to disolve past structures.
-=+>>
-=+>> That's why I said "po-co" and not "po-mo." Pay attention.
-=+>
-=+>What do you think po-co is?
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >I see you have placed most of your argument, as it is now developing, within this context.
-=+>>
-=+>> What, modernism v. post-modernism? Nope.
-=+>
-=+>As I recall, this discussion started when I mentioned my interest in May Day activities.
-=+>I post this to usenet and it then becomes a signifier of my personal beliefs. You assume that my beliefs
-=+>are informed by a potsmoking-wafty-hippy-identity, which sometimes inversely manifests itself as
-=+>black-clad angry pissing in the wind. In doing this you also assume that my belief's are not valid
-=+>because they can tangentially relate [by image] to some preconceived notion of what the people, who
-=+>object to the commodification of culture, look like.
-=+>
-=+>This is the crux of your argument.
-=+>
-=+>It is wrong.
-=+>
-=+>But it got a rise out of me, I'll give you that.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >I do not
-=+>> >believe that the dissolution of modernist structures into an infinite, and more or less meaningless
-=+>> >set of relationships is going to work. Theoretically, it's just the next conceptual puzzle to nut
-=+>> >out in a university bar. What ever change that -is- happening will happen on the streets, and not
-=+>> >in universities. Like on May Day for example.
-=+>>
-=+>> Do you mean, with street demonstration? I don't see how. The corporations
-=+>> aren't going to change their ways because a bunch of youngsters in spiffy
-=+>> costumes yelled obscenities at them from the sidewalk. They only respond
-=+>> to economic pressure, and all the dorm-room revolutionaries and unemployed
-=+>> anarchists in the world combined just don't have the buying power to
-=+>> threaten them with boycott.
-=+>
-=+> May Day was for the marchers, not the corporations. It was in honour of the people in front lines
-=+>everywhere. Acts like this also remind us to "think" every now and again, about how our personal value
-=+>systems are informed for e.g. I include myself in this.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> The only way that globalization can be stopped is if the great bulk of the
-=+>> populace demands it be stopped--and as it stands now, the great bulk of the
-=+>> populace is indifferent to it. What are you going to do about *that*? Do
-=+>> you expect your movement to change many minds by being seen on television
-=+>> shouting slogans and breaking windows?
-=+>
-=+>Did it get to you stop and think at all? Say, rattle off a coupla hundred words on the issue?
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >At the same time, however, you will find an
-=+>> >increasingly skilled set of people who are willing to take their skills and apply them to the
-=+>> >problem of a sustainable global society, from within. Who has the right to decide that an economic
-=+>> >system should be the linchpin for a global set of relationships? Why can't it be art, or ideas, or
-=+>> >language?
-=+>>
-=+>> Because people must eat and be sheltered and get about, and they are able
-=+>> to do these things because of the economic transactions they make (exchange
-=+>> of labor for money, exchange of money for goods). Where there is
-=+>> international trade, the relationships between nations (or between
-=+>> far-flung groups of people, if you like) will always be primarily economic
-=+>> in nature because of this. And this remains so whether or not the
-=+>> companies involved in the trade are "transnational."
-=+>
-=+>What about the major shift to the trading of information, RussellBee? This is not the 1940's. The
-=+>"people must eat and be sheltered and get about" line does not work if you compare it to billion dollar
-=+>weapon stockpiles. My point being that there are enough resources to go around, independent of
-=+>economics. It's economics that funnel resources away from the people who need them.
-=+>
-=+>
-=+>
-=+>> >I think, (this is what you will find is going to happen in terms of cultural theory), that the
-=+>> >necessary split between old/analog/modernist/universal/patriarchal/central and *yawn*
-=+>> >new/digital/po-mo/relative/a-sexual/decentralised will be resolved. In this resolution you will
-=+>> >find the conundrum, the event horizon of the multiplicity of meaning will give way to the stark
-=+>> >realisation that we, as a species will either choose to kill ourselves off or adapt to a far more
-=+>> >mundane reality. That of sustainable existence. A methodology for this will take the most useful
-=+>> >parts (or the parts we cant get rid of) of both these paradigms.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >One: This methodology will attempt to base the production of goods and technology within a
-=+>> >holistic approach to available and sustainable resources. This is the crux of the movement.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Two: This methodology will also take into account that the circulation of the production of goods
-=+>> >and technology need not be a method of distribution, but rather contribution.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Three: You will see interconnected networks of people sharing their skills across disciplines,
-=+>> >fields, geography and cultures, effectively creating a culture of open source.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Four: Work as we know it will cease to become the chimera of "progress", and will instead become
-=+>> >daily activities which give us all personal value, other than economic.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Velour?
-=+>> >Just how old -are- you anyway?
-=+>>
-=+>> Utopia? How old are *you*?
-=+>
-=+>I never said I wasn't an idealist.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>>>Thus,
-=+>> >>>>>you will see the perpetuation of the old argument ad infinitum, ad nausium. Right.
-=+>> >>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>What I personally believe, is that both of the above options are inherently flawed. Any
-=+>> >>>>>originating worth [in any detail] has been reduced to empty signifiers of a system that
-=+>> >>>>>NO ONE understands.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>OK, so the System is too vast and complex for anybody to understand (that's
-=+>> >>>>kinda like what mystics say about God, you know; it's also kinda like what
-=+>> >>>>parents say to their kids when they don't know the answer to a question).
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>You have not grasped my point here,
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Don't be so sure that I haven't, Fizzy. I mentioned mystics for a reason.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Not that you're one to obfuscate or play advocate with logic's own glass beads.
-=+>>
-=+>> Do tell.
-=+>
-=+>My lucky numbers are seven & three.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>although your tangent is just as applicable to my
-=+>> >>>argument. My point being that globalization and with it, advertising, has become the NEW
-=+>> >>>religion. We worship the media, and with it money, like we once worshiped stone idols.
-=+>> >>>However, the difference being, instead of us relating personally and holistically to our
-=+>> >>>idols, effectively making our own stories, mythology and culture.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>When did we do that?
-=+>>
-=+>> Well?
-=+>
-=+>It was an analogy to highlight the role of television as promoting passivity and lack of engagement with
-=+>our own, very valid, but under-represented, stories. Do you disagree?
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>It's now served to us on a
-=+>> >>>pap drip of Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed down news reports.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Where do you think those stereotypes come from? Does "the media" sit up at
-=+>> >>night concocting them from thin air? No; I rather think they get them from
-=+>> >>us.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>It just may be that those Hollywood stereotypes and dumbed-down news
-=+>> >>reports *are*, whether you like it or not, our own stories, mythology and
-=+>> >>culture.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Of course Hollywood stereotypes are a part of our culture, but they are not the sum total of -all-
-=+>> >of our culture. I am not denying the feedback loop between culture and representation. However, the
-=+>> >issue I take is that when large corporations start buying up large portions of the media you are
-=+>> >not going to get a diverse representation of culture. What you will see however, is the use of
-=+>> >media to shape culture (the feedback loop is not one way, obviously) to support the existence of
-=+>> >large corporate bodies. This is the reason why advertising is so insidious. It replaces a more
-=+>> >organic culture with consumerist spiel which in turn supports the existence of the media, and the
-=+>> >corporate bodies that own it.
-=+>>
-=+>> You consistently ascribe almost-magical powers to advertising and the
-=+>> "media." Here you grant them the power to supplant organic culture with
-=+>> its own homogenous consumer-culture. Does it not seem possible to you that
-=+>> culture can exist outside the reach of the "media"?
-=+>
-=+>Utopia?
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>It's a one to many broadcast
-=+>> >>>model that renders us passive and stupid.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Do you really think that broadcasting--pictures on a screen; voices from a
-=+>> >>radio; words on a piece of paper--can render the engaged-and-intelligent
-=+>> >>passive and stupid?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Passive? Absolutely.
-=+>>
-=+>> How? Have we no agency here? Is it up to the talking boxes and newspapers
-=+>> to choose for us whether we engage the world actively? Is there no *limit*
-=+>> to the eerie power of this "media" god to cloud mortal minds?
-=+>
-=+>Agency, transparent and accountable, is what I advocate.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >Stupid? That remains to be seen.
-=+>>
-=+>> Ok.
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>>I have to wonder, then, wherefore your righteous anger at it? You know, it
-=+>> >>>>could be the greatest thing since Weetabix.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>All those dewy-skinned, pampered upper-middle-class youngsters with the
-=+>> >>>>black masks and watchcaps and backpacks full of ball bearings and pig shit
-=+>> >>>>just might be demonstrating against something that will deliver the world
-=+>> >>>>from centuries of warfare and starvation. Probably not, but...just a
-=+>> >>>>thought.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>>If you ask me, it's just the memes
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!! THAT WORD!!! SHE SAID THAT WORD!!!
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Have you no concept of self parody.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>I've heard of it.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >I don't believe you.
-=+>>
-=+>> I'll bet you think I really have a velour suit.
-=+>
-=+>I *know* you've got a velour suit.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>> I'm a memetic warrior, I'll have you know.
-=+>> >>>[cough] Oh yea, shall I wield the sword of language and cut swathe through ideas most
-=+>> >>>fouleth... [cough]
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Thou foulst my screen with thy misuse of the suffix "eth." :)
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>>> getting cranky at our ignorance
-=+>> >>>>>and finally self propagating in a way that may finally transcend the flesh. But anyway. I
-=+>> >>>>>digress...
-=+>> >>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>It's hard enough to comprehend what your neighbour's reality might be, let alone to asses
-=+>> >>>>>the merits of a global set of relationships that are infinite in their reiteration.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>Hey, you said something I agree with!
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Read it again.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Ok.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Now *you* read it again. Especially the "assess the merits" part.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>>>The
-=+>> >>>>>May Day riots are reductionist, yes. To this you will see the usual reductionist
-=+>> >>>>>argument. However, they do signify a growing WESTERN unease of operating under a system
-=+>> >>>>>that is no longer seen to serve people directly. i.e. it has become a self perpetuating
-=+>> >>>>>system, which is forever re-designing itself to support its self. Added to this is the
-=+>> >>>>>environmental destruction that our consumption based ideology produces. I am not
-=+>> >>>>>advocating an end to *things*. I like *things*. However our own, very physical realities
-=+>> >>>>>are suffering under an illusion. People get sick of explaining the deconstruction. They
-=+>> >>>>>want to fight. [yes, yes I know]
-=+>> >>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>I can rant about this forever and start getting into some semblance of detail, but I will
-=+>> >>>>>save that for some other time.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>I'll pass on the rant. But, erm, I wouldn't mind seeing some semblance of
-=+>> >>>>detail.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>You wanna know how I observed May Day? I surfed around on the Web for a
-=+>> >>>>>>>>pair of cool red/white/red taillights and a decent power amp (at least 75W
-=+>> >>>>>>>>RMS per channel for the front speakers and 200W to the subwoofer in the
-=+>> >>>>>>>>rear) for my car. I posted to Usenet a little, and then shopped on the Web
-=+>> >>>>>>>>some more.
-=+>> >>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>I shall tell you about my May Day- This further goes to prove my theory that my life
-=+>> >>>>>>>is but a series of unrelenting ironies punctuated by devastating slackness [which is
-=+>> >>>>>>>how I like it].
-=+>> >>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>So I set my alarm for 6:30 [A-HEM]. Usually, I am only up at this hour if I've
-=+>> >>>>>>>stayed up all night, being the morning person that I am. Now as my little eyelashes
-=+>> >>>>>>>only met briefly for say 1 hour, somehow (I still haven't managed figured this out
-=+>> >>>>>>>yet) my higher reasoning decides to ignore my alarm, and thus I sleep till 12:30.
Rocky
-=+>> >>>>>>>catch a bus into the city hoping to catch the tail end of any activities, but the
-=+>> >>>>>>>only cloo I have as to any sort of protest was the buzzing of a police helicopter
-=+>> >>>>>>>over the city district. Oh, and the random media vans and police types. These all
-=+>> >>>>>>>can be explained rationally enough by my usual speculative paranoia. So I grab a
-=+>> >>>>>>>yiros and head back home.
-=+>> >>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>I put it down to an unconscious assimilation of Bob Black's "Abolition of Work".
-=+>> >>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>What things might you have done (he asked for no particular reason), had
-=+>> >>>>>>you been the sort of person who wakes for alarms and so had made it to the
-=+>> >>>>>>party in time?
-=+>> >>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>I would have done this:
-=+>> >>>>>Walk with the other people. Talk to anyone who asks me questions. Get some sun. Take a
-=+>> >>>>>dump in Mickey D's.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>You...*do* mean in the toilet, don't you? That's what you mean, right?
-=+>> >>>>Right?
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Right.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Ok.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>Around five o'clock I turned on the news and saw live coverage of a
-=+>> >>>>>>>>somewhat rowdy May Day protest in a large city near where I live, and
-=+>> >>>>>>>>chuckled to myself as the helicopter news camera pulled in on a crowd of
-=+>> >>>>>>>>identically-dressed, obviously young, obviously white, most-likely middle
-=+>> >>>>>>>>or upper class kids having what amounted to a big panty raid, with the
-=+>> >>>>>>>>police playing the part of the crusty old dorm matron.
-=+>> >>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>Noted.
-=+>> >>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>>I'll bet you three
-=+>> >>>>>>>>out of four of them couldn't have given you an articulate explanation of
-=+>> >>>>>>>>what they were protesting (I've seen reporters try this and the results are
-=+>> >>>>>>>>invariably funny).
-=+>> >>>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>I'll point you to an audio file of a *very* articulate 12 year old boy being
-=+>> >>>>>>>interviewed about M1 (when it's up). Because I know how much you care [grin]. What I
-=+>> >>>>>>>noticed about the mainstream media reports, is that the interviewers took on the
-=+>> >>>>>>>persona of the "disapproving parent" in their interviewing style.
-=+>> >>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>Hard for them not to, I guess, when so many of the mostly-young protesters
-=+>> >>>>>>so self-consciously take on the persona of "naughty child."
-=+>> >>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>See above argument.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>Argument seen. But see below re: media personnel taking any stance with
-=+>> >>>>regard to the demonstrators due to sheer ignorance. Point: "media" is not
-=+>> >>>>monolithic entity.
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>No, however you will see bigger and bigger structures taking place like the Time Warner merge.
-=+>> >>>Effectively creating huge power bodies that are very closely linked to corporate ideology.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Asserts what ought to be proved.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>This is especially dangerous as the media (representation) sets the reality standards on a
-=+>> >>>cultural level.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>See above.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>The media is not *objective*,
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Trivally true, to the extent that no person in or outside of "the media"
-=+>> >>can maintain immaculate, disembodied objectivity when observing or
-=+>> >>reporting any event.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >It is not a trivial point. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you think that corporate agenda
-=+>> >does not effect media representation? Honestly?
-=+>>
-=+>> No. Pay attention; I'm asking you to demonstrate that the corporate
-=+>> "agenda" exerts the sweeping control over "media" (what?) representation
-=+>> that you claim it does.
-=+>
-=+>Demonstrate that it doesn't.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >If so, how do you figure?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>it has always operated from some sort of agenda.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>How do you figure?
-=+>> >
-=+>>
-=+>> What "we all" do is not the same as what the "media" does.
-=+>
-=+>No, but my argument stays the same. I also take into account that what "we all" do is shaped by those of
-=+>us who chose to broadcast in a media saturated world.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>> Be that agenda
-=+>> >>>personal, or company required, or a collective set of standards etc. What you will find with
-=+>> >>>mainstream media though, is that because they are first and foremost businesses, their number
-=+>> >>>one agenda *is* profit.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>The *boardroom* is concerned with profit. You've not shown that the
-=+>> >>editorial floor carries out a profit-first agenda (or any agenda for that
-=+>> >>matter).
-=+>> >
-=+>> >In a top down system this is a given, RussellBee.
-=+>>
-=+>> No, Fizzy, it's not a given. Please demonstrate how the reporters,
-=+>> writers, and editorial decision-makers at newspapers, magazines, radio
-=+>> stations, and television stations carry out a "corporate" agenda to such a
-=+>> degree that they knowingly dismiss or demonize globalization's discontents.
-=+>> Tell me, also, how you come to have such intimate knowledge of the
-=+>> goings-on within "media" organizations.
-=+>
-=+>I propose, as an example, the use of laws in journalism like Defamation & Copyright, combined with the
-=+>amount of space that a commercial newspaper has to set aside for advertising and sponsorship. Do you not
-=+>think it reasonable that a journalist reporting on the production methods of N!KE [trite example but
-=+>useful], may run into an editorial brick wall if N!KE sponsors that papers production?
-=+>
-=+>Lets say, for example, that N!KE applies pressure on the CEO, who applies pressure on the Editorial
-=+>Department & Marketing Department, who then apply pressure on the sub-editor, who then applies pressure
-=+>on the journalist to not submit a critique of N!KE practices from a certain angle. This is done under
-=+>the guise of Defamation Law, but what it really is, is market sensitive censorship.
-=+>
-=+>Under a better system the journo could have their stuff published [keeping in mind that it's well
-=+>written and researched], and N!KE would be accorded the space in which to respond. This is a dialogue
-=+>which the public has a right to see, *and* participate in. From here, people make up their own minds as
-=+>to what they want to believe. This is an accountable method in a democratic system.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>Logically then, anything opposing or questioning this is a threat to
-=+>> >>>their ability to make profit.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Non sequitur. Please explain how, from the fact that the owners of a TV or
-=+>> >>radio station, newspaper, or magazine are in business to make a profit, it
-=+>> >>follows logically that anything "opposing or questioning" profit or the
-=+>> >>profit motive threatens the ability of those owners to make money.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Because it calls into question the commercial media's authority as the objective reflector of our
-=+>> >culture. It is not a just a reflection, it is a projection, that is, for the most part, profit
-=+>> >driven.
-=+>>
-=+>> Please explain how it follows that if something "calls into question the
-=+>> commercial media's authority as the objective reflector of our culture,"
-=+>> its representation by the "media" actually threatens the ability of those
-=+>> "media" concerns to make money.
-=+>
-=+>This is hinged upon my argument that asserts: Commercial media is subject to censorship and ideology
-=+>reflective of it's commercial sponsors and owning bodies.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>>>>>It was very much a
-=+>> >>>>>>>moral whitewash as far as the normals were concerned. I also noticed the barely
-=+>> >>>>>>>constrained hostility that allot of the reporters and news people had. Why, it was
-=+>> >>>>>>>almost as if their authority as media spokes people [for the fucking people] was
-=+>> >>>>>>>threatened. I saw footage of police in riot gear smash batons over the heads of
-=+>> >>>>>>>protesters, while the sound byte stated "The protesters were inciting violence".
-=+>> >>>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>>The demo over here was not large and had not been advertised, and the local
-=+>> >>>>>>TV news "reporters" were just plain clueless about what was going on.
-=+>> >>>>>>That's not an exaggeration; they literally hadn't the foggiest notion what
-=+>> >>>>>>they were seeing.
-=+>> >>>>>
-=+>> >>>>>They were seeing people reclaiming the streets. Seeing people saying "fuck you! I don't
-=+>> >>>>>feel like working today. I am not happy with the people who lay claim to responsible
-=+>> >>>>>government and trading". Eh?
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>If you say so. What I was getting at is that these particular
-=+>> >>>>"journalists" didn't even know that they were seeing a May Day protest, or
-=+>> >>>>that it had anything to do with what was going on in Europe and elswhere.
-=+>> >>>>For all they knew it could have been a mini-riot by punk rockers angry at
-=+>> >>>>being turned away from a matinee concert. They could hardly be accused,
-=+>> >>>>then, of doing the bidding of any moral whitewashers. They were quite
-=+>> >>>>literally at a loss for an explanation of what was happening.
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Ok. The commercial media (channel Nine, Ten, Seven) here in Australia were positively
-=+>> >>>venomous in their reaction. Not overtly, but condescendingly and insidiously. There was no
-=+>> >>>examination of any argument, but instead just moral condemnation.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>I can only take your word for it, I guess.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>>>(A few notes by way of, um, translation, and forgive me if you already know
-=+>> >>>>this: May Day as a holiday is a nonentity in the U.S. even among leftists;
-=+>> >>>>May Day demonstrations are practically unheard of. Local television news
-=+>> >>>>"reporters" in large U.S. cities are notoriously bubbleheaded and ignorant,
-=+>> >>>>and that reputation is for the most part deserved.)
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>>The media
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>Who?
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>Commercial media.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Who?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, News Corporation, Sony, TCI, Universal, NBC, MSN...
-=+>>
-=+>> Those are companies. Companies cannot be "too stupid to work anything out
-=+>> that does not fit into a preconceived category," nor can they be "venomous
-=+>> in their reaction" to a political demonstration. People do these things.
-=+>
-=+>The reporter in the street represents the agency who controls the broadcast. The broadcast is sponsored
-=+>by commercial advertising. Am I the only one who sees this link?
-=+>
-=+>> Who are these people, and why are they, all the thousands of them, in your
-=+>> opinion so monolithic in their motivations and desires?
-=+>
-=+> Isolating the people who own the big media organizations will not effect my argument. That is; a
-=+>system which owns the means of production of "information", will ultimately "control" the types of
-=+>information presented. This is done to maintain market position.
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>>
-=+>> >>>>>is too stupid to work anything out that does not fit into a preconceived
-=+>> >>>>>category. Ok not too stupid, but it operates on a level which cannot process the above
-=+>> >>>>>without going "What the fuck?" Um, er, where does it fit? They only do that when they can
-=+>> >>>>>sufficiently assimilate any real difference. i.e turin it into a product, an image, a
-=+>> >>>>>logo, a brand.
-=+>> >>>>
-=+>> >>>>How do you figure?
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>become a set of generalities that replaces any notion of the original intent. Take the
-=+>> >>>"hacker subculture" for example. At one time, when a community of people may have been playing
-=+>> >>>around with technology doing their thing for their own reasons, they could be seen to have a
-=+>> >>>degree of authenticity. However, as technology increasingly moves into the sphere of domestic
-=+>> >>>commodity, the "hacker subculture" is a handy signifier to use to garner sales. i.e. It has
-=+>> >>>the widely used attractor of being anti authoritarian (kids & angsty teens will love it) and
-=+>> >>>it uses technology and places technology as the prime signifier ( i.e. you must use tech
-=+>> >>>products to fit into the "identity").
-=+>> >>>
-=+>> >>>With the creation of the "hacker subculture", the "Nerd" was dragged up from the recesses of
-=+>> >>>some bad 80's chick flick and reinstated as the "cool and plugged in uber-geek". The
-=+>> >>>"uber-geek" is the GUI for the consumption of products based on a thoroughly re-created
-=+>> >>>notion of the "hacker subculture". Take the Matrix for example. Neo's a fucking twit, but he
-=+>> >>>goes to raves and is, uh, cool. He is not the nervous social retard of yester year. Do you
-=+>> >>>know how many kids probably bought their Hewlett Packards after seeing the matrix? Or how many
-=+>> >>>other fuckers decided that collecting peripheral devices was no longer geeky, but "cyber"
-=+>> >>>cool? The "hacker subculture" has been reduced to a brand, a set of signifiers in order to
-=+>> >>>sell a product. In the process any authentic meaning has been flattened into image. Right.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Is being a hacker cool in Australia? Serious question. Because it ain't
-=+>> >>cool here.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Not exactly, although some people tend to piss their pants over wareZ. It's more of a geek chic
-=+>> >aesthetic that I see increasingly used in advertising. Along side this are the "tutti fruity"
-=+>> >pieces of technology like i-macs and automatic pez dispensers with call-back.
-=+>>
-=+>> That has nothing to do with hacker culture, watered-down or otherwise.
-=+>>
-=+>> "Geek" culture was never threatening to anybody; and those tutti-frutti
-=+>> Imacs represent something antithetical to geek and hacker culture:
-=+>
-=+>How do you know?
-=+>
-=+>>
-=+>> high-technology devices that the user is not expected to understand.
-=+>> They're certainly not sold by means of an appeal to "geek chic."
-=+>
-=+>No, but the image of 'understanding high-tech devices' is certainly used to sell domestic ones.
-=+>
-=+>> >>>This is the double play of disarming a somewhat potentially dangerous group of people and
-=+>> >>>reducing their valid concerns into a superficial and commodity based product.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>I've heard that argument before. Hell, I've made that argument before.
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>Has it not occurred to you that the people who profit from commodification
-=+>> >>of a subculture perhaps couldn't give a fuck about disarming it? That the
-=+>> >>declawing of an oppositional subculture that may result from its symbols
-=+>> >>being sold to the public in bulk are nothing more than a collateral effect
-=+>> >>to which the seller is indifferent (he's already made his money)?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>
-=+>> >>IMO, members of subcultures who accuse "the media" or "corporations" of
-=+>> >>trying to destroy them by assimilation flatter themselves with the thought
-=+>> >>that anybody is paying them that much attention.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Not true. An example I can give you is a woman who was actively protesting about Boise Cascade's
-=+>> >(one of the largest wood and pulp corporations in the world) involvement in the Chilean forests.
-=+>> >This was made possible under the NAFTA ( North American Free Trade Agreement). These Gondwana
-=+>> >forests are some of the last remaining remnant forests from before the last ice age. What they
-=+>> >effectively provide is a seed stock for all of the other forest species in Southern America, New
-=+>> >Zealand and Australia.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Now, on top of this is the fact that Boise Cascade was also working in close cahoots with the
-=+>> >Chilean government to use scare tactics towards to local peasant farmers and small scale wood
-=+>> >harvesters. After all, a gigantic American company had set up shop in their backyard effectively
-=+>> >fucking up their families futures, both ecologically and economically. One of the local farmers, an
-=+>> >uneducated but aware farmer named Rodolfo Montiel set about mobilising his community, who were
-=+>> >resistant to Boise, to protest. The Rubén Figueroa Alcocer government ( a Pinochet regime
-=+>> >throwback) at the time had already made things rather dangerous politically. But now the government
-=+>> >was set to loose a substantial profit through it's trade agreement with Boise. Whether or not Boise
-=+>> >actually colluded with the Rubén Figueroa Alcocer government is unproved. To this day Boise
-=+>> >sustains that it was unaware of the political climate in which it's operation was to take place.
-=+>> >The end result being that Rodolfo was taken by the Mexican Army, tortured and is now imprisoned
-=+>> >indefinitely for alleged drug trafficking and guerrilla activities.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Transnationals huh?
-=+>> >
-=+>> >This all leaked out to various human rights and environment groups, and recently this has prompted
-=+>> >the evolution of a global Gondwana action group. One of the members of this group, a woman, was
-=+>> >publicizing Rodolfo's situation through the global grapevine and media. Recently, she has received
-=+>> >a slap notice and has been officially silenced by Boise on this matter. One person speaking out.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Go check out the Boise Cascade page and you will realise why what she was saying was so
-=+>> >threatening.
-=+>> >http://www.bc.com/
-=+>> >Notice the use of language, and how it promotes a certain type of community orientated identity:
-=+>> >
-=+>> >This page illustrates Boise's appropriation of environmental slogans and stickers to create a
-=+>> >seemingly environmentally aware image:
-=+>> >http://www.bc.com/enviro/environment.html
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Most of the office paper & products used in America are produced by Boise using offshore labour and
-=+>> >resources.
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Gotta love that global economy. It makes fucking over someone else's resources and community that
-=+>> >much easier. Oh and by the way, the proposed logging coups in Chile were recently closed. The word
-=+>> >got out. =)
-=+>> >
-=+>> >Rodolfo Montiel is still in prison.
-=+>>
-=+>> That's not an example of anybody trying to defang a subculture by
-=+>> assimilation.
-=+>
-=+>Yes it is- I repeat: Go look at the language and imagery used [representation] to create an image of a
-=+>seemingly reasonable environmental standard which posits those who look critically at it as
-=+>fundamentalists. To create the norms in culture, one must create the polarities as well.
-=+>
-=+>This argument of yours began with the assertion that I am a member of some anti authoritarian and youth
-=+>orientated subculture. In being so, you implied that I am not equipped to come to a critical
-=+>understanding of the things that effect my own beliefs. By assimilating me into a certain type of image,
-=+>you effectively denounce the validity of what i've got to say, while asserting that your own "objective,
-=+>informed and background" presence is the yard mark for my own self-awareness.
-=+>
-=+>It's not.
-=+>
-=+>Now, I don't believe that you're unaware [stupid] enough to really assume the above, so I'll go with the
-=+>theory that "responsibility means backing up your own argument". In this case, I do believe you have
-=+>received what you asked.
-=+>
-=+>Cha Cha Cha...
-=+>
-=+>
-=+>______________________[filed]
-=+>
-=+>______________________[filed]
-bing-
Rocky wrote:
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
I'll have to learn this line wrap thing.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
My Hamburger is cold
-bing-
"RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 - 0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub" wrote:
> Netscape 4.7X has this thing where if it doesn't like you, it resets your
> line lengths to, like, 100 or something every now and then without
> notifying you. I've seen this happen before. It's not a very good
> newsreader to begin with, and on top of that it's spiteful.
>
> Try Gravity 2.5, it's free now.
Thankey RussellBee. I may just be arsed enough to get it.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
elims for da camarah lucidah.
DAVIDHERO
0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
::
::Try Gravity 2.5, it's free now.
FUCK. I WANT MY $30 BACK!!!!!
Scram
-0700
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>And...(gasp)...and the funny part is...(pant)...the funny part is that
>after you tried Gravity for about two weeks you (heee!)...you switched to
>*Agent*, AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can be so cruel sometimes, Russell. It's an ugly side of you I
love to hate.
-bing-
-bing- wrote:
Oh my god, you could customise a small town with this.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
http://www.baccalieu.nf.ca/community/dildo.htm
DAVIDHERO
0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
<bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> (my pla) says
::
::
::>On Wed, 09 May 2001 16:42:07 -0700, "RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 -
::AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
::
::And...(gasp)...and the funny part is...(pant)...the funny part is that
::after you tried Gravity for about two weeks you (heee!)...you switched to
::*Agent*,
Shuttup Russell, or I'll bash your durn head in.
:: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
DAVIDHERO
(my pla) says
::
::"RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 - 0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
He always picks on me.
DAVIDHERO
0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
<bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> (my pla) says
::
::
::>"RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 - 0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
::Oh, don't even get me started. I'm still griped at that son of a whore for
::stealing my "Pharmacist" post last year.
::
::See, you got me started. I told you not to get me started. I'm started
::now. FUCK.
The "Pharmacist" post was MINE and you stole it!!!
PLAGIARIST!!!!
DAVIDHERO
0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
<bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> (my pla) says
::
::They all laughed when DAVIDHERO <DAVI...@TEEHE3.net> said:
::
::>0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
::><bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> (my pla) says
::>::
::>::They all laughed when DAVIDHERO <DAVI...@TEEHE3.net> said:
::>::
::>::>On Wed, 09 May 2001 16:42:07 -0700, "RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 -
::>::>0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
::>::><bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> (my pla) says
::>::>::
::>::>::Try Gravity 2.5, it's free now.
::>::>
::>::>
::>::>FUCK. I WANT MY $30 BACK!!!!!
::>::
::>::AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
::>::HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
::>::
::>::And...(gasp)...and the funny part is...(pant)...the funny part is that
::>::after you tried Gravity for about two weeks you (heee!)...you switched to
::>::*Agent*,
::>
::>
::>Shuttup Russell, or I'll bash your durn head in.
::
::
::Oh, sure, he'll go on and on about how I "pick on" him, and what have you.
::Just remember, Scram: you just saw him THREATEN me with a head-bashing.
::
::He stole my woman, too. Fifi was mine. MINE.
You want Fifi? You can have it hahahahaha...sorry if it's a little
wet.
::
::>:: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
DAVIDHERO
0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub"
<bigf...@subdimension.comxremovethisx> (my pla) says
::
::
::>On Wed, 09 May 2001 18:47:32 -0700, "RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 -
::GODDAMN LYING, WOMAN-STEALING, PLAGIARIZING, HEAD-BASHING-IN-THREATENER!!!
What's the matter, Slim?
-bing-
They want their tartlet back.
Heee Haww.
______________________
Fuck, Russell B, your so antagonist orientated.
-bing-
"RussellBee, Worthless Scum #255 - 0wn3d By The Brethren Of Beelzebub" wrote:
> How can I resist, when you temptate me so?
Ah... The lamination of tha wimmins.
--
H-R-M: CONSUMABLE SIMULACRA
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music."
Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989